[From diaries by susanhu w mini-edits.] The Washington Post has an article on prospective SCOTUS Justice John Roberts’ position on women’s rights.
From the article:
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women’s rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called “the purported gender gap” and, at one point, questioning “whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good.”
Further explanation of the context later in the article:
His remark on whether homemakers should become lawyers came in 1985 in reply to a suggestion from Linda Chavez, then the White House’s director of public liaison. Chavez had proposed entering her deputy, Linda Arey, in a contest sponsored by the Clairol shampoo company to honor women who had changed their lives after age 30. Arey had been a schoolteacher who decided to change careers and went to law school. MORE BELOW:
And on women’s pay in the work place
In internal memos, Roberts urged President Ronald Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were “highly objectionable”; and he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue — of directing employers to pay women the same as men for jobs of “comparable worth” — was “staggeringly pernicious” and “anti-capitalist.”
The article notes that these documents from the Ronald Regan library are likely to be the last of what we will see on Roberts as the administration has declined to disclose papers from Robert’s time as Justice Department’s deputy solicitor general (from 1989 to 1993).
Related Diary: Why Didn’t Judge Roberts Recluse Himself
May I just say, simply: What a f–king asshole.
You may.
Is what they aren’t showing us. I think we can safely assume that we are seeing his good side.
What really scares me? Reid’s declaration of unquestioning support for this appointment. I want to know what he was thinking.
Broken record here:
I just know that if we shaved his and Frist’s and George Allen’s and Karl Rove’s (what’s left of it) hair, we’d find the sign. The 666. (All credit to “The Omen” movie, one of my fav popcorn movies.)
These guys have is really staggering. There can be little doubt that a woman hating, narcistic jerk like this would try to overturn Roe v Wade..
I should know better..but I’m really surprised that they thought they could float this guy under the Radar. Then, the have the brass thingies to refuse to give any more documents on him.
If he’s an asshole than the press are the butt-cheeks, letting these guys get away with this!
Thank you susan 🙂
Susan, was it you who recently posted a really good commentary that included a list of the Guantanamo “legal” rules that Roberts approved? I want to find that list/commentary again so I can send it on to some friends who are having a hard time believing it could possibly be true. I’ve been looking, but so far haven’t come up with it. Please don’t go to any trouble. While you’re thinking abut it I’ll go check Billman. Maybe that’s where I saw it.
Thank you!
p.s. Do you know that Ask is over in the cafe with your orange juice!
Yes! Couple days ago, Amy Goodman interviewed Michael Ratner, pres. of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Georgetown law professor David Luban, who wrote an article on this in Slate.
it is utterly appalling that he was having INTERVIEWS with ALBERTO GONZALES for a seat on the Supreme Court at the same time he sat on the three-judge panel deciding “that the military tribunals of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed. The decision also found that Bush could deny terrorism captives prisoner-of-war status as outlined by the Geneva Conventions.
Why Didn’t Judge Roberts Recuse Himself?
And, I loved Ratner’s analogy:
WHY ISN’T THE PRESS ALL OVER THIS? This is inexcusable, immoral, and — if properly exposed — very damaging.
Thank you. I’ll send that on to my dumbstruck friends. But. . .that Amy Goodman piece doesn’t include the list of rights (bitter laughter)/rules I’m still looking for. It was a really concise list that any layperson (like me) could understand. The rule that I can’t get out of my head is the one that gives the prisoners the right to be thrown back into prison even if they are exonerated! I’ll keep looking. If I find it elsewhere, I’ll see if I can bring it here.
KEWL! Knowing you, you’ll find it … i wasn’t in the Slate article, was it?
Slaps forehead. Maybe. I’ll check.
And I mispoke myself: it’s oui who is in the cafe with the promised orange juice!
Military Tribunals in dKosopedia has a list: “The tribunals are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and differ from U.S. criminal courts in several respects.”
Also this diary at dKos.
That’s it. Thank you! It’s the Wik. entry I’m looking for, but I’m glad to have the DKos diary, too. Maybe I should try to put together our own diary on this subject. I’m esp. interested because I have a friend who’s going to be one of the attorney’s going down to Guantanamo to represent the prisoners.
Oh you must.
perhaps you can interview your friend? I’m sure BooMan would agree that we’d be thrilled to feature such original journalism on our front page.
I’ll do a factual diary, but I can’t promise the friend. I’ll ask him and see what he says, though. The only thing I know at the moment is that the lawyers have to go through a training process and I believe they each have to agree to represent 3 prisoners. And there you have the extent of my knowledge. As I understand it (vaguely at best) there are actually (at least) two different “legal” processes going on. . .or that will be going on. . .and I need to find out which of them involves these particular lawyers.
this strikes me:
Have you or Susan diaried this specific aspect yet?
Roberts’ rulings in the Hamdan and Acree decisions and what it means with respect to concentration of power in the executive: here.
Don’t be put off by the title. The diarist worked for choice pre-Roe. Her point is that Roe would only be one of the things to worry about. At the time the diary was posted Armando was focused on Roe alone. Clearly, enough more troubling stuff has dribbled out in the past four weeks to wake up those who were lulled by the initial GOP buzz about Roberts’ white-breadness, as stenoed by the WaPo.
Also read this Slate article about how Roberts was being interviewed for the SCOTUS nomination by Gonzales, Card, Rove, et. al. before and during arguments in Hamdan! And Roberts did not notify Hamdan’s attorney about it.
Well put. If this doesn’t give the Senators some meat to chew on with Roberts in his confirmation hearings, I don’t know what would … interviewing for a job with the man whose actions he’s deciding as a judge. WTF?