Cross-posted at dailykos
A file of nominee John Roberts can no longer be found anywhere at the Reagan Library, following its inspection this summer by 2 lawyers from the WH and the Department of Justice.
They removed and claim to have returned the file in July, according to the WaPo story, page A4.
The file that has disappeared covered Affirmative Action cases when Roberts worked for Ronald Reagan.
One of the 2 lawyers who reviewed the file is trying to help the library “reconstruct” its contents. (This diary is a follow-on to dailykos writer BarbinMD’s recommended diary at that site.)
The missing file troubles me now.
It is precisely on the issues of the rights of women and minorities where I believe Roberts is most retrograde.
Even without the missing file, we are learning things about the nominee for Supreme Court justice that make me wonder.
Consider now the position Roberts stated on Title IX, which blocks discrimination against women’s facilities and opportunities at schools that get federal funds. (Roberts was an Associate Counsel to the White House from 1982 to 1986.)
Roberts argued (registration-restricted link) that federal aid given for students to attend a college makes Title IX mandates apply only to the admissions process and not the rest of the college. He wrote that “triggering coverage … is not too onerous if only the admissions office is covered.”
He continued in his memo that the “entire institution” (for example, athletic programs) should not have to comply with Title IX unless it meets a test of “something more solid than federal aid to the students.”
You can thank Ted Kennedy, yes Kennedy, and a Congress that overturned a Reagan veto, for the “Civil Rights Restoration Act” which made explicit a requirement that any school or any entity that does business with the federal government can not discriminate against women and will have to comply with the federal anti-discrimination laws.
The battle over the civil rights legislation continued for several years, but ultimately Mr. Kennedy prevailed. His bill passed in March 1988. Reagan vetoed it and his veto was overridden.
A co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, Nancy Duff Campbell, said she was disturbed by the nominee’s description of Mr. Kennedy’s bill as radical. “That’s pretty distressing that he would say that. That’s the bill that ultimately passed. That’s settled law,” she said. “This memorandum does raise concerns about what his views are on civil rights law.”
Judge Roberts also kept a file on at least one other contentious civil rights issue, the conflict over the government’s right to strip the tax exemption of Bob Jones University because of its ban on interracial dating. That file is not among those presently available for review, according to the library’s listing [as of July 22, the byline date of the article].
[The emphasis, bold and underscore, is not in the original article in the NY Sun.]
I agree with Cambell of the National Women’s Law Center. His advocacy in denying that Title IX applies to academics, athletics and programs, outside of strictly admissions is offensive. You can contrast his view to O’Connor’s subsequent rulings on Title IX issues.
If you comment, see if any of you can also find instances where Roberts shows disdain to minority rights or women’s rights, for example, the Voting Rights Act, condescension to Olympia Snowe’s request on comparable pay for women-occupied jobs, and especially his seeming hostility to the right of privacy for women (relating to the 40-year old Griswold case). I ask this because I am not able to devote the time to it myself now.
If you are inclined, some of you can cite his urgings to his “client” (the US government) on these issues.
Anyway, for now this file on AA issues is conveniently missing !
