So, anyone else out there most unhappy to learn that the guy who will be our next member of the Supreme Court wondered -- in writing no less! -- whether our homemaking females should be encouraged to get out of the kitchen and have careers?
I always suspected he was more conservative than conservatives let on -- but I didn't realize the guy is a:
A knuckle scrapper
A huge sexist.... and many other descriptions my upbringing will not allow me to utter....
Thank you New York, may I please have another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's the story, in the Aug. 19 editions of The News:Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
So, anyone else out there most unhappy to learn that the guy who will be our next member of the Supreme Court wondered -- in writing no less! -- whether our homemaking females should be encouraged to get out of the kitchen and have careers?
I always suspected he was more conservative than conservatives let on -- but I didn't realize the guy is a:
A knuckle scrapper
A huge sexist.... and many other descriptions my upbringing will not allow me to utter....
Reagan-era documents show reluctance on women's rights, support for ID card
By DAVID ESPO
Associated Press
8/19/2005
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. disparaged state efforts to combat discrimination against women and wondered whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good," according to Reagan-era documents that were made public Thursday.
As a White House lawyer, Roberts also expressed support for a national identification card in 1983, saying that it would help counter the "real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration."
In words that may resurface next month at his Senate confirmation hearings, he criticized a crime-fighting proposal by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., as "the epitome of the "throw money at the problem' approach."
Specter, then a first-term senator, is now chairman of the Judiciary Committee and will preside at Roberts' hearings.
The documents, released both in Washington and at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., completed the disclosure of more than 50,000 pages that cover Roberts' tenure as a lawyer in the White House counsel's office from 1982 to 1986.
Taken as a whole, the material released Thursday reinforced the well-established image of Roberts as a young lawyer whose views on abortion, affirmative action, school prayer and other issues were in harmony with the conservative president he served.
In one memo, Roberts reviewed a report that summarized state efforts to combat discrimination against women. "Many of the reported proposals and efforts are themselves highly objectionable," he wrote to Fred F. Fielding, Reagan's White House counsel.
As an example, he said a California program "points to passage of a law requiring the order of layoffs to reflect affirmative action programs and not merely seniority" - a position at odds with Reagan administration policy.
He referred to a "staggeringly pernicious law codifying the anti-capitalist notion of "comparable worth,' (as opposed to market value) pay scales."
Advocates of comparable worth argued that women were victims of discrimination because they were paid less than men working in jobs that the state had decided were worth the same.
In a third case, Roberts said a Florida measure "cites a (presumably unconstitutional) proposal to charge women less tuition at state schools, because they have less earning potential."
In a memo dated Sept. 26, 1983, Roberts cited the Reagan administration's objections to a proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
"Any amendment would . . . override the prerogatives of the states and vest the federal judiciary with broader powers in this area, two of the central objections to the ERA," he wrote.
His remark about homemakers and lawyers was in a one-page memo about the Clairol Rising Star Awards and Scholarship Program, designed to honor women who made changes in their lives after age 30 and had made contributions in their new fields.
A Reagan administration official nominated an aide who had been a teacher but then became a lawyer. Roberts signed off on the nomination, then wrote: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide."
Also, Roberts struggled to define the line that Reagan and other officials should not cross in encouraging private help to the forces opposing the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
A memo dated Jan. 21, 1986, said that there was no legal problem with Reagan holding a White House briefing for two groups trying to raise funds. A month later, Roberts warned against getting too close to such groups, toning down letters of commendation drafted for Reagan's signature.
On immigration, he wrote to Fielding in October 1983 that he did not share his opposition to a national ID card.
Guess he has a lot in common with Bill Clinton.
You should support that!
Thank you New York, may I please have another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for that oh-so- intelligent response.Originally posted by jbinbny
Guess he has a lot in common with Bill Clinton.
You should support that!
Truth and liberalism dont mix, do they? But it was your thread. I merely point out the hypocrisy of the article.
Thank you New York, may I please have another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm very confused.Originally posted by jbinbny
Truth and liberalism dont mix, do they? But it was your thread. I merely point out the hypocrisy of the article.
What does Clinton's private sex life have to do with Roberts not wanting homemakers to have jobs outside the home?
Clinton has nothing to do with this issue -- except, it appears, to serve as some kind of dodge for you.
How about we have a thread that doesn't boil all issues down to Clinton's penis???
The problem with Clinton is that he thought with his penis.
And eventually it caught up with him. My only wish is that he wasn't president when he got caught.
As far as Roberts is concerned, the article is a desperation gasp to find something, anything on this man.
And they cant.
But I do enjoy watching the libs try. Ifind it very humorous.
Thank you New York, may I please have another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're amazing.Originally posted by jbinbny
The problem with Clinton is that he thought with his penis.
And eventually it caught up with him. My only wish is that he wasn't president when he got caught.
As far as Roberts is concerned, the article is a desperation gasp to find something, anything on this man.
And they cant.
But I do enjoy watching the libs try. Ifind it very humorous.
Why can't you stop thinking about Clinton's penis?
Anyway, so you're saying what was in the papers released was what -- a lie?
I don't get this.Originally posted by jbinbny
Guess he has a lot in common with Bill Clinton.
You should support that!
What are you referring to???
Clinton???????
You must be reading the wrong thread
Talking about Bush again?Originally posted by jbinbny
My only wish is that he wasn't president when he got caught.
.
I guess JB isn't going to respond to your question, so I'll give it a try.Originally posted by therising
I don't get this.
What are you referring to???
I posted a story about the Supreme Court nominee John Roberts expressing doubts about whether homemakers should be encouraged to have careers outside of the home.
For some reason, JB thought it was hypocritical for me to be unhappy with Roberts' attitude because of Bill Clinton's affairs with other women.
I never did see the connection, and JB never explained it.
If that's the case, then it's about the most pathetic example of grasping at straws that I've ever seen.
Maybe that's why JB never responded to your post....Originally posted by therising
If that's the case, then it's about the most pathetic example of grasping at straws that I've ever seen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote