Posted on 08/15/2005 10:26:12 AM PDT by Crackingham
As a young government attorney, John Roberts advised the White House to support congressional efforts to allow school prayer, arguing that a Supreme Court ruling striking down the practice "seems indefensible."
In a Nov. 21, 1985 memo released Monday by the National Archives, Roberts was responding to a move by Congress to permit "group silent prayer or reflection in public schools." He said he would not object if Justice Department officials announced that President Reagan had no formal role in passing an amendment to that effect, but said he would support such a move.
The Supreme Court's conclusion that "the Constitution prohibits such a moment of silent reflection -- or even silent 'prayer' _ seems indefensible," Roberts wrote in a memo to White House counsel Fred Fielding.
That material was part of nearly 50,000 pages of records related to Roberts when he served in the White House counsel's office. Before their release, the documents were reviewed by the National Archives staff to protect material deemed sensitive for national security, privacy and law enforcement reasons.
Earlier, in a June 4, 1985 memo, Roberts argued that White House officials could exploit the Supreme Court's decision prohibiting school prayer. While justices struck down an Alabama statute mandating a one-minute moment of silence, "careful analysis shows" it was on technical grounds, he said.
Roberts said that a majority of justices would allow a similar law if it were worded more carefully to avoid expressing a religious purpose behind the measure.
The Alabama law was struck down because of the "peculiarities of the particular legislative history, not because of any inherent constitutional flaw in moment of silence statutes," Roberts wrote in a memo to Fielding regarding the Supreme Court decision in Wallace vs. Jaffree.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
GASP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................
Ann Coulter will be unimpressed. :)
School prayer? Oh no, not THAT!
Hey, wait a minute. If prayer and religion have no meaning for atheists, why does it bother them so much? Why don;t they just ignore this? Or are all athesists constitutional lawyers?
Phew. Feel better now.
I've figured out Roberts. He is a gay-loving, porn defending, school prayer supporting, abortion clinic bombing, man with an affinity for the Federalist Society.
I am sick of this media roller coaster.
------
Now that the media and their gods, the Dems, know that the Repubs are spineless, they are going to P@SS all over them. With impunity.
You shouldn't trust the biased media for anything. If you want to learn about Judge Roberts, do some research on your own on the Internet.
Oh my! What a heathen!!!
Ann Coulter's objection seems to be only that Roberts is not a Thomas or a Scalia. Perhaps she wants one or the other cloned.
From all that I have read, Roberts is not an activist judge and holds to the tenets of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers wrote it. I think he'll make a fine appointment to SCOTUS.
Agree...I really want to see Roberts confirmed...I think he would make an excellent jurist. I was a little disappointed the woman from Tulane (Edith Clement) did not get the nomination...but, hey, maybe next time!
He's toast.
Agreed. Some people seem to freak out that as a lawyer, Roberts behaved as a lawyer behaves. I guess they figure he's too dumb to know that a judge has a different job.
I will agree that prayer should be allowed in schools when biology is taught on Sunday mornings in the local house of worship.
I attended church 2 or more times per week. I believe in Jesus Christ and worship God as much as the next guy.
I do not believe that a separation between church and state exists either. I just don't see why prayer needs to be in school. If you feel you need to pray in school, do it before school starts. Or at lunch. But the school should not have to set aside class time for prayer.
This is outrageous! Schools are no place for adults to foist their values on children. Now that we have cleared that up, please march the students to condom distribution and the cross-dressing, transvestite and drag queen role-playing and sensitivity seminar.
Damn. Why can't he be like Souter!
I've figured out Roberts. He is a gay-loving, porn defending, school prayer supporting, abortion clinic bombing, man with an affinity for the Federalist Society.
Nah, Souter was on the board of two hospitals that performed abortions.
He's Souter Dammit! Stop posting material that says otherwise. ;-)
In all seriousness Roberts is a Constitutionalist from all accounts. One of the rare few that doesn't allow ideology to infect his work. Some on right and Left are threatened by that. They keep peeking through his cases under the assumption that if THEY are an ideologue, then HE must be an idealogue, and they must make sure his ideology matches their's. So one day they are on a high, one day they are on a low when a new case or memo arrives.
I guess the appropriate analogy is how the Left, and sometimes Right, look at the President. They don't expect him to tell the Truth or do what he promised, so when he does, it takes them off guard. Well, similiarly the Left and right are so used to lawyers lining up on left and right they expect it. Anyone that doesn't play that game, anyone that has more allagiance to the Constitution then a political philosophy..well, something must be wrong with him. He can't be genuine. The very idea of someone just doing their job without bias just doesn't sit well.
It sits well with me however. This is what the President promised and it is what our Founders intended. I've seen nothing that would lead me to re-evaluate my assessment of him.
I will say I do believe him to be a conservative, for what's that's worth. I find being a Constitutionalist of more importance myself, but if I had to venture a guess I'd state the reason he has kept a quiet profile aside from it being a part of his personality is that he witnessed first hand what happened to more vocal conservative Jurists. being a young lawyer with high aspirations and watching what happened to Bork up close can have a way of making an impression. Let alone the attacks even "moderate" Justices went through if a Republican dared nominate them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.