Writing in TNR Online, T.A. Frank says the Roberts hearings were about “HOW TO SAY NOTHING AND SAY IT WELL.” Roberts, he says, “knows how to say nothing at great length–which, these days, is an essential skill.”
And yet Frank quotes a statement by Roberts that, at least in today’s political environment, is nothing less than profound:
Being against busing and being against quotas is not the same as being against civil rights.
In fact, it’s a sad commentary on our political environment that such an obviously true statement is denied by so many people, and ironical that those people are concentrated in the political party that prides itself on its devotion to “civil rights.”
From the LA Times:
“Roberts expressed support for portions of a 2003 opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor upholding the rights of state universities to consider race in making admission decisions. Roberts said it was proper for the court to take note of the positive effect of racial and ethnic diversity in the military when it upheld an admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School.”
The GOP has nominated 6 of the current 8 Supreme Court Justices. Two – Scalia and Thomas – were known conservatives. The other 4 were “stealth” candidates – with unknown or ambiguous views on affirmative action. As far as the Grutter/Gratz college racial preference/quota rulings:
O’Connor: wrote the Grutter ruling, supports racial preferences.
Kennedy: Opposed the Grutter ruling, but said that some – “more limited” – racial preferences would be acceptable.
Souter, Stevens: Supported even the quotas in the Gratz decision.
So Roberts is at best ambivalent on the issue of racial preferences. The best any rational past observer of GOP court picks should expect from Roberts is that we get another Kennedy. More likely, he’ll be like O’Connor.
Bottom line: Conservatives who support the GOP are foolish masochists.
With respect to racial & gender preferences, I hope that Roberts is to the right of even Thomas and Scalia. It’s time to stop playing footsie with pro-AA Democrats and end this nonsense once and for all.
Contrary to Justice O’Connor’s views, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should be enforced AS WRITTEN, without favoritism or discrimination toward any particular group.
Cicero,
Hoping is not enough. I HOPE to marry a supermodel, but that’s about as likely as Bush nominating anybody for the Supreme Court who is openly against racial quotas/preferences.
The talk is that since Bush has appeased the foolish conservatives with Roberts, he can now nominate a moderate/liberal like (ultra-liberal)Alberto Gonzalez to replace the moderate/liberal O’Connor. That would give us a net change of one conservative and one moderate(Renquist and O’Connor) for one moderate(Roberts) and one liberal (Gonzalez).
For a response to Sen. Kennedy regarding his disgraceful performance at the Roberts hearings, go to:
http://ithroughe.blogspot.com/