I’ve argued here a number of times (such as here and here) that the “exposes” in the press of Judge Roberts’s opposition to busing and racial preferences will probably enhance his appeal to many people.
Guess what! Surprising as it may seem, it appears that I was right!
… [T]he intense scrutiny of Roberts’s record as a lawyer and judge may be benefiting the nominee, the [Washington Post-ABC News] survey suggests. Four in 10 — 39 percent — said the more they heard about Roberts, the more they liked him, while 28 percent said new information has made them feel less favorable toward the nominee
Thanks, MSM!
When the AA issue isn’t clouded by euphemisms such as “equal opportunity” “inclusion” and “diversity”, Roberts support rises.
As the American public begins to understand that Roberts has been strongly opposed to racial and gender preferences, those who favor AA will be hard pressed to attack him on these issues.
This is especially true in light of the Gratz case, which exposed the University of Michigan’s policy of giving “underrepresented” ethnic groups an automatic 20-point bonus on the 150-point scale used to rank applicants. A majority of people of all races/ethnic groups generally find these types of policies repugnant.
I have no idea why you keep on attributing a bad intent to the discovery of his views.
actus,
I have no idea why you keep on attributing a bad intent to the discovery of his views.
Possibly because the people publishing them present each item with the air of one triumphantly producing the smoking gun?
“Possibly because the people publishing them present each item with the air of one triumphantly producing the smoking gun? ”
What air?
actus,
What air?
Well, if the meat of your story is that Roberts said “comparable worth” was a “pernicious” doctrine, and that he once wrote in a memo that turning homemakers into lawyers might not strike everyone as a boon to humanity, and once described a Girl Scout as a “little huckster” in another memo, and the hed of your story in one of the country’s most important newspapers is “Roberts Resisted Women’s Rights,” I think it’s fair to say that you are trying to make these shocking — shocking! — discoveries look just a little more impressive than they might if they were lying there in the middle of the data-soup like ordinary facts. Just sayin’.
We have very few facts on roberts. Its worthwhile to write stories about as much of his views as we can, because we know so little and — for a concidental reason, his youth — he will be on the court so long. Any little bit is worthwhile of printing.
Oops. I mean, a not coincidental reason.
actus,
Yes, everything’s worth printing; but it’s not necessarily worth printing under the hed “Roberts Resisted Women’s Rights.” And the people assembling articles on the basis of Roberts’ memos haven’t been picking memos at random, on the grounds that “any little bit is worthwhile of printing”; they’ve been looking for the damaging bits, and apparently not finding anything particularly useful.
‘And the people assembling articles on the basis of Roberts’ memos haven’t been picking memos at random, on the grounds that “any little bit is worthwhile of printing”; they’ve been looking for the damaging bits, and apparently not finding anything particularly useful.’
They’ve been looking at the controversial things we discuss and are interested in.
“. If one applied this same degree of euphemism to the Holocaust, one could say that the Nazis were
notherbob2, that’s a completely unreasonable interpretation of what actus said. S/he’s quite right: the little bits of Roberts’ record that have gotten all the attention have gotten it because they’re the bits concerning controversial subjects. I tweaked him/her about the “any little bit is worthwhile of printing” because it’s obvious s/he doesn’t believe that any more than I do, but on the scale of Icky Euphemisms the one you complain about doesn’t rate a 1.