After poring through piles of Judge John Roberts’ old memos the ever-vigilant liberal watchdogs of the portal to the Supreme Court have made a breathtaking discovery: Roberts is [Gasp!] a conservative! Amazing!
Note this head and sub-head from a Washington Post article yesterday:
Judge’s Reagan-Era Work Criticized
Papers Show Roberts’s Conservatism, Liberal Activists Say
Well! We can’t have that, can we?
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), asked if the documents suggest Roberts is not committed to civil rights, said: “I don’t reach that conclusion yet, but it does certainly raise some questions in my mind.” He added that the Judiciary Committee must find out whether “Judge Roberts is going to be a part of the sense of progress we have made” on civil rights or whether will he “move us back.”
And Sen. Kennedy, of course, as the WaPo pointed out in an article on Thursday, is the arbiter of all things having to do with civil rights:
… Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who helped pass America’s major civil rights laws, said he would question Roberts’ commitment to those laws at the hearings.
It’s clear beyond question, however, that when Sen. Kennedy and friends question someone’s “commitment” to civil rights, what they are really questioning is that person’s support for racial preference (and, apparently, even busing in the case of Judge Roberts).
Since Kennedy et. al.’s is clearly a biased, partisan, and tenditious definition of civil rights, should the WaPo and the rest of the press implicitly support that usage by continually quoting them without clarification? After all, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to which the WaPo erroneously exaggerates then freshman Sen. Kennedy’s contribution, specifies neutral, colorblind treatment of every individual. Many people — according to polls, a substantial majority — still adhere to that standard. And yet according to the press’s reporting, without comment or clarification, the liberals’ questioning of Judge Roberts’ commitment to civil rights, the press itself imples that all these people do not believe in “civil rights.”
As one of those people, I resent the implication. WaPo and others, you could make it up to me by reporting that my friends and I question the “commitment to civil rights” of anyone who rejects the principle that everyone should be treated without regard to their race, creed, or color.
Political movements never want to fold up the tent and go home after their objectives have been met.
There is no longer any need for a civil rights movement. As John points out, what we need to do now is to end the racial and sexual quota system.
Time for the quota mongers to go home. That would mean a loss of jobs, patronage and the ability to twist other people’s arms behind their backs and force them to yell “uncle.”
In other words, it’s no longer about civil rights. It’s about perks. And people do fight like the devil to keep their perks.
Why shouldn’t a newspaper that has a black-only intern program be in favor of quotas, set asides, and racial classifications as part of American society?
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), asked if the documents suggest Roberts is not committed to civil rights>/i>
It is just a matter of time before the Left “discovers” that Roberts owned slaves.
Is it just me, or do other people feel that this process is ludicrous? Nobody can survive a detailed review of every word they wrote and every comment they uttered throughout their life. It is impossible to not have said or wrote something that one can interpret in a negative light. Well, at least Roberts has never murdered anyone. The same can
I was wondering why the white house was shying away from Robert’s connection to the federalists.
The Hero of Chappaquiddick didn’t murder anyone; he merely drove while under the influence of alcohol, committed vehicular homicide, and left the scene of a fatal accident. In Massachusetts, that’s Senate material.