Posted on 08/19/2005 6:14:30 AM PDT by Credo
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."
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If you read the context of his "contributes to the common good" quote, he is obviously making a sly lawyer joke.
"Washington Post "Analysis""
I guess if the media can't find any "dirt" on Roberts they just make it up. This is like the AP yesterday basically wondering if Roberts may be a racist because his parents raised him in an area with white neighbors (gasp!) !!!
If he defended a murderer he would be for murder.
Sound more like a 10th amendment issue and he was for states rights to address the issue as opposed to the fed.gov which was/is not needed.
And he's been vindicated on all of those points.
Story: ... In internal memos, Roberts urged President Ronald Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress;
Opposing the ERA and resisting women's rights are two completely different things. The ERA was such an idiotic and unnecessary and insidious assault on the Constitution that would have been wide open to penumbras and interpretations by activist judges.
This is absolute garbage. What Roberts said, and other justices agreed with him, is that not all work is equal. For instance, driving a truck is not a job that should be compared to sewing.
Is this one of those legendary front page "analyses?" I always love those.
Washington Post-"Justice Ginsburg resisted saving unborn babies"...
Yes, Roberts was against special consideration and affirmative action. And yes, he was making a lawyer joke, saying that there were too many lawyers already (there are) and whether having more lawyers is good for society (as a lawyer, I'll leave that up to others to decide, but I'm with Roberts on this one).
Let us hope not!
Resisted? That's pretty tame for the Post! You know they're scraping when they use anything less than "Hitler".
Paging Judge Lefkow, paging Judge Lefkow. Please drive to O'Hare and get on the next plane to DC and give your tearfilled testimony again about how it's wrong to "criticize judges." Judge Roberts' and his family's life are in danger by all this constant criticism.
Where art thou, Judge Lefkow??
Exactly. That's the problem with the equal pay for work of equal worth proposals. Who gets to decide what the worth is of each occupation? I guarantee if it's done by the government, especially during times of political correctness, the results will be ones we wouldn't agree with.
And what is the significance of anyone's opinion anyway, whether it yours, mine, or that of a government commission? The market already has an opinion of what the various occupations are worth, and the market is probably right. Those wage levels didn't get set that way because market forces like men better than women, those forces could care less. They are a precise measure of supply and demand for various kinds of labor, and every time government tries to set economic laws by decree, the economic laws find a way to strike back (leading the geniuses in government to say more of the same must be the solution).
So the Com-Post has finally come around to accepting Roberts and is so indicating by praising his foresight?
In October 1983, Roberts said that he favored the creation of a national identity card to prove American citizenship, even though the White House counsel's office was officially opposed to the idea. He wrote that such measures were needed in response to the "real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration."
The left, including the Washington Post wouldn't know a lawyer joke if they saw one.
Proof? They just saw one and didn't recognize it.
What a bunch of humorless idiots.
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.