Posted on 08/17/2005 12:56:26 AM PDT by goldstategop
That carefully crafted political blank slate of Judge John Roberts is getting filled in piece of by piece.
And what it reveals is an ugly portrait of a backstabbing establishment Republican who subverted the political will of the greatest American president of the 20th century.
Memos drafted by the Supreme Court nominee during his tenure in President Reagan's Justice Department show a distinct hostility to the conservative ideals embraced by his boss and to some of the individuals who championed those ideals.
Take, for instance, a Dec. 14, 1981, memo, obtained by the Washington Times, and written to his colleague, Kenneth Starr, another country-club Republican, who would later bamboozle President Reagan into nominating Sandra Day O'Connor as a Supreme Court justice.
The topic was a book called, "A Blueprint for Judicial Reform," produced by Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation. The American Bar Association, no friend of the Reagan administration, was quizzing new Attorney General William French Smith about the ideas in the book.
Roberts let his hair down and revealed just what kind of a snake he truly is in this memo he probably thought would remain forever a private communication.
"I suggest we keep as low a profile on this as possible," he wrote to his co-conspirator Starr. "Weyerich [sic] is of course no friend of ours, but it won't help to stir up the influential contributors to this volume, and any comment by the AG will simply highlight the fact that we have yet to take a position" on some of the issues raised by the book.
Weyrich is no friend of ours!
Only an anti-conservative would make such a comment.
Weyrich is one of the shining intellectual lights of the modern conservative movement.
You can like him. You can dislike him. But he's a true believer and closely represented the will and ideals of Ronald Reagan, the man sitting in the White House – the man Roberts was ultimately supposed to be serving.
I've seen this kind of weasel all too often skulking around the corridors of our nation's capital – undermining visionary leaders like Reagan, betraying the people who elected them to office, promoting their own personal political agendas.
Roberts is the kind of Beltway creature I most detest. He's not man enough to stand up and tell you what he really believes. He doesn't want to be accountable for defending his positions publicly. So he conspires in the dark behind closed doors and writes memos attacking righteous men who have the courage to operate in the light.
The fact that Roberts twice misspelled Weyrich's name also suggests just how out of touch he was with conservative thought. All conservatives knew Weyrich in 1981. He was seen as one of the architects of the Reagan landslide victory and part of the conservative brain trust that would set the nation on a new political course.
Remember, this is the guy who can't remember if he ever joined the Federalist Society. He's pathological.
Now, I don't consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself a friend to many conservatives. And my advice to those friends is to recognize right now that John Roberts is the enemy. One of my beefs with conservatives is they never seem to see it coming. They didn't recognize what Ken Starr was and is. And they still don't see the handwriting on the wall with John Roberts.
Roberts was an insider then defending the indefensible policies of the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department that was out to thwart Reagan initiatives.
He's a backroom "fixer," and he's just been rewarded for his underhanded wheeler-dealing with a lifetime nomination to the Supreme Court – and he will not be denied, not by the fat-cat Republicans who dominate the U.S. Senate.
In another memo to French in 1982, Roberts showed he understood how easy it was to win over conservatives with a simple phrase – a gimmick now employed with great success by President Bush.
When preparing the attorney general for an interview with the editor of the Conservative Digest, he suggested dropping the phrase "judicial restraint." That would do the trick.
Hey, isn't that the very same phrase that Bush used in announcing his nominee to the world?
Even if true, this does not discount certain red flags that all conservatives should be concerned about.
Oh for crying out loud. He was 26 years old and a few months into his first real job. Yeah, a real insider.
That is his first amendment right to do so and Farah looks at it from the stand point of:
"Is America being over taxed?", "Have Americans lost a lot of their freedoms guaranteed under our Constitution?", "Are we appeasing terrorists?", "Are we appeasing Communists?", and finally, "Why are Americans being indoctrinated with the fallacy that America is a democracy?"
I haven't learned anything about Roberts that concerns me yet. What I've seen so far, I like. I'm withholding approval until the RKBA/FOPA memos appear though.
RINO POS BUMP!!
Bush #43 better not be sticking us with another Souter. That pathetic choice for the Supreme Court is his father's judicial stinking legacy. I'm becoming very leary of this "highly qualified" nominee who seems to be on both sides of many issues.
Weyrich has been off the wall at times so I have no problem with someone distancing themselves from them. I would have done just what Roberts did.
I would love to see the context here.
Too often, the person becomes the issue not the issue. If Reagan did as Farar wanted, you better believe the MSM would not stay with just one issue but his whole body of work and try to paint Reagan with the same broad brush and pin all of Weyrich's ideas on Reagan.
This is getting tiresome. Anyone going back thorough an individuals posts here on FR would come across inconsistencies and downright stupidity (based on an incomplete understanding of the issue). I have not seen that with Roberts. He has stood up better than we would.
which means ann coulter was right...everyone else was singing roberts praises,she was saying,'hey,folks,he is a frigging liberal...It seems she was right on the money......
Let me put it this way. If Roberts was nominated by a democrat, these same pro-family and conservative groups would be after his scalp and in grand scale. I'm saying if the a democrat nominated the same John Roberts as has GW Bush. I haven't quite figured out why they would circle the wagons on Roberts when nominated by Bush, yet would be very vocal in opposition if the nomination would have been made by a dem.
I invite you to look at the Jay Sekulow interview on Hugh Hewitt's website from last night. I think that Jay has a very good read on what kind of judge Roberts will be.
The accurate term is SOCIALISTS, not "neo-libs". The SOCIALISTS long ago hi-jacked the Democrat party for their own purposes.
You really think the same Bush who renominated staunch conservatives to fill a bullpen of Supreme Court nominees is itching to sell us out?
Can you sum it up for us a little please?
The accurate term is SOCIALISTS, not "neo-libs". The SOCIALISTS long ago hi-jacked the Democrat party for their own purposes.
Thanks for your post, Jim. It puts the article into context.
I agree. When I was young, I was pro-abortion, pro-sex-anyway-you-can-get-it, and was a drunkard. Then, I was saved by Jesus Christ. THose three, with other wrong thinkings, changes, almost over night.
You read some of my writings from 20+ years ago and you would not have the same picture of me.
It complements more recent findings.
Thanks for posting this, goldstategop.
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.