Posted on 09/21/2005 5:58:30 AM PDT by radar101
I understand that it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Senate, perhaps as early as this week, will approve the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice of the United States.
This tells us as much about the weakness of the Senate as it does the strength of this nominee. The institution would be a lot stronger if senators stopped indulging their egos by going on about how they would have decided individual cases and paid more attention to things that might shed light on a nominee's character.
Things such as an offensive memo bordering on bigotry that Roberts wrote while working as a young lawyer in the Reagan White House. The memo dates back to September 1983, when President Reagan was gearing up to support pending legislation in Congress that would legalize millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States, most of them from Mexico.
First, the fact that Roberts would even make such a sweeping assumption shows that this Harvard man's understanding of the complexity of the Hispanic community didn't extend beyond the No. 3 combination plate at whatever Mexican restaurant the Washington elite were spending their lunch hours. That community includes Cuban-Americans who – thanks to the Cuban Adjustment Act, which gives legal residency to Cuban refugees who reach U.S. soil – tend not to get worked up over immigration. Mexican-Americans do get worked up. But they're conflicted over amnesty for illegal immigrants, with polls showing the ethnic group divided on the subject.
What's worse is what New York Sen. Charles Schumer called the "inartful" way in which Roberts phrased his assumption, telling White House Counsel Fred Fielding: "I think this audience would be pleased that we are trying to grant legal status to their illegal amigos."
Illegal amigos, huh? Nice.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
MORE:
Since then, more has come to light. Not just the memo, but also about Roberts' criticism of affirmative action and support for a Texas law – later declared unconstitutional – that prohibited undocumented immigrant children from attending public schools.
All of this convinces Flores that the nominee lacks the "real world experience" of dealing with Hispanics and other minorities.
"Roberts flunks the civil rights test," Flores told me this week.
LULAC opposes the Roberts nomination, as do a number of other Hispanic organizations.
You can't blame them. With demographics changing and the minds of Americans slamming shut, with vigilantes on the U.S.-Mexican border and Congress diving back into the insulting debate over English-only laws, these are perilous times for the nation's largest minority – times when it pays to know who your amigos are.
This guy is a chip looking for a shoulder to be on...............
Wow..."illegal amigos"!
Yup...that proves he's a "bigot".
The author writes like a fool.
Not all Hispanic organizations oppose Roberts. I saw one of them several weeks ago (don't remember the name) stand up and support him. And I don't think that it was particularly a conservative group.
A mortal sin. This from the people who routinely use the most vile words possible in Spanish to describe Americans.
And the Biggest Sin of All...opposing Plyler v. Doe, which Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion on.
"With Demographics changing...." -- the fuzzy term for invasion and occupation by a foreign and hostile populace.
Navarette: Just another Mexican Thug with an Attitude.
I believe that was a group of Hispanic state legislature members in New York, all Democrats.
If anyone knows more, please let us know. It was a very good story.
I guess they are upset that John didn't take the time to find out what the spanish word for "illegal" was?
He should have said "amigos ilegal".
Certainly they can't be upset that he called them friends.
Would it be better if he called them the "delictivo ilegal"?
Oh, wait, I missed the point. John Roberts is a white republican, so whenever he opens his mouth he is a bigot no matter what he says.
Harry Reid used this "illegal amigo" comment, and Robert's refusal to "confess" that he had been a bigot when he said it, to justify his "NO" vote.
When the democrats say that "even now, Roberts refuses to see that the words were highly offensive", what they mean is that Roberts refused to say that when he said them in 1983, he did so because he hated mexicans.
A "chip" huh?
I'll bet you mean TORTILLA CHIP don't you!!! You Racist! </sarcasm>
8^P................
BINGO!!
"What's worse is what New York Sen. Charles Schumer called the "inartful" way in which Roberts phrased his assumption, telling White House Counsel Fred Fielding: "I think this audience would be pleased that we are trying to grant legal status to their illegal amigos."
What's wrong with amigos? Or amis? Or Landsmen? Or Paisanos? Or anyother word meaning "friends" when referring to friends in another langauge?
Chuckie should get a life.
"Inartful" is hardly the same as arrogant. The Wicked Witch of the West, Bader-Ginsberg, was absolutely arrogant in responding to questioning before her appointmant, and considering the fact that she approves of polygamy and sexual consent at 13, perhaps the Senate Repubs who voted for her should have a reality check. (Has anyone ever thrown water on Bader-Ginsberg?? Just curious. I wonder if she would melt.)
The author shows his racism by his sweeping use of Hispanic and grouping all into one group.
I wonder how this guy would define his own biases? Sounds like he may have some of his own. Like maybe he's quick to ipugn the integrity of White males he happens to disagree with? Sounds he's the one who insists on giving definition to what was very arguably an innocent attempt at humor.
This writer needs to take a breath and take a sip of his coffee or whatever.
I think Roberts is unfortunately representative of the thinking in Washington with regard to immigration as a way of appealing to hispanic voters.
I agree with his anti-affirmative action views, but he was wrong to assume that American hispanics consider illegals to be our "amigos", or that letting more of them into the country would please us.
Hello??? John Roberts has two adopted Hispanic children, they may be blonde but they have Hispanic biological parents from South America.
I found it despicalbe that Harry Reid tried to soil Chief Justice Roberts by implying that he is racist to Hispanic. And LULAC and La Raza have been discredited in the Hispanic Community as Latino Moonbats in the same category as Sharpton and Jackson, La Raza and LULAC are a bunch of self-serving charlatans.
It is not a foregone conclusion. Who knows what the Dems will try to pull before the final vote.
We may be ahead in the fourth quarter, but it's not over until the final buzzer. I'll breathe a huge sigh of relief after I've heard the 51st Senator vote to confirm. Until then, anything could happen. When is the vote scheduled for anyway?
You may be right. They were standing in front of a public building. I must have heard it on Fox news, since that's what I usually listen to. The spokesman said that they regretted not speaking out about another nominee and they weren't going to make the same mistake again. Yes, it was an impressive statement.
*sigh*
I'm not saying he's racist....far from it.
I'm saying his views on affirmative action are CORRECT, but like much of Washington, he was (at least back in the 80s), MISGUIDED with regard to thinking that liberal immigration policy would appeal to American hispanics. Our immigration policies today, which are still far too liberal--especially with regard to illegals, are partially in place for the purpose of HISPANDERING. What they don't understand is that a clear majority of U.S. hispanics who are at least 3rd generation Americans are opposed to these liberal policies.
No one is a bigger critic of La Raza and LULAC than me.....what did I say in my previous post to lead you to think otherwise.........I think my record around here is pretty clear.
Let me get this straight. He's disappointed that Robert's had over two decades to come up with a convincing lie and just settled for the truth. Okay, it makes sense to me now. When is Robert's goint to learn? Never tell the truth when a lie will do.
"I think this audience would be pleased that we are trying to grant legal status to their illegal amigos."
This is what he's upset about?
Twenty years ago he gave an opinion that he thought the majority of legal hispanic residents of the US would support the idea of granting amnesty to illegal hispanics.
It's one sentence. From this one freakin sentence the author determines that Roberts doesn't understand the diversity of the hispanic population.
While that is likely true, you don't need to understand the full diversity of the hispanic population to form a reasonable opinion on if the majority will support certain legislation or now. You will never have complete support for anything among a large group of people.
He's getting upset about the use of the work "amigo" in what he considers a sophmoric way? That's childish. There's no intent to demean. Roberts response about it seems appropriate to me. This was and is no big deal, and the only people who were offended would have found a way to be offended regardless of what Roberts said.
These are the kinds of issues the left have with Roberts. Nothing of substance. Just a bunch of childish complaints about a snetence in a twenty year old memo here or there.
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.