“When Roberts worked for the Reagan Justice Department, for example, he derided what he termed the “so-called” right to privacy and said that it is “not to be found in the Constitution.” The Washington Post reported yesterday that Roberts, referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark privacy ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, praised a dissent that would have permitted states to prosecute people for using contraceptives–even married couples!

This is hard for me to comment on without knowing the exact context that they are talking about, but I am assuming when they say “when he worked for the Justice Department” they are refering to when he was an assistant to the Attorney General. If this is the case, then his “deriding” a decision may simply mean that in his capacity as Assistant Attorney General he was arguing against that position. Basically, the point is that he worked for Reagan, his job was to defend the position that the administration wanted, and to that end he would be required to make the best argument possible. The point is it *may not* have anything to do with his own views or how he would respond as a judge. Now, I am not naive enough to think that he is going to be a progressive when it comes to social issues like abortion and birth control. Regardless of his personal opinions, he had an obligation when he took that job to make the best argument possible. Believing otherwise would be like saying Public Defenders support the act of murder, or all Prosecutors unequivically support the drug law regime. That’s just not how the legal profession functions, and for good reason.

*supported regulatory changes that would have permitted the federal funding of discrimination against women, minorities, people with disabilities, and older Americans (Washington Post, July 26 );

hmmmm. I’d be very curious to know what he was supporting and in what capacity. Usually, when attacks are phrased in this way (i.e. “Mrs. So-and-so voted for the elimination of money for our kids to go to school so they can succeed in life!”) they are masking something that justifies the position. The Republicans mastered this technique against Kerry and I don’t particularly like it.

*argued that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required “the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates” (New York Times, July 28 );

criticized the Supreme Court decision forbidding organized prayer in public schools;

ought to expand the ability of prosecutors and police to question suspects out of the presence of their attorneys (Washington Post, July 26 );

and argued that the Justice Department should not intervene on behalf of female prisoners who were discriminated against in a job-training program (New York Times, July 28 );

Again, this says nothing about in what capacity he said or “argued” these things. Personally, I think they are being deceptive and using scare tactics ala Karl Rove. If he were making these types of statements and implications I would say the same thing. If I am wrong, and these were academic or personal statements then that would change everything, and they should say so in the reporting. But my hunch is that these are not manifestations of his personal beliefs *even if he does really believe such things*. Therein lies the problem IMO: we just don’t know. So we are left to judge him by his credentials, and they are pretty much impecible. I just want to avoid the hypocrisy of using Republican-style scare tactics that are baseless and manipulative. If there are good arguments against the guy someone will find them, but the fact that he “argued” something as a lawyer is not convincing and its disingenuous IMHO.

Some of us don’t drink coffee, but we do have deep conversations about abstract theories and APA style over lunch, dinner or hookah.

“When Roberts worked for the Reagan Justice Department, for example, he derided what he termed the “so-called” right to privacy and said that it is “not to be found in the Constitution.” The Washington Post reported yesterday that Roberts, referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark privacy ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, praised a dissent that would have permitted states to prosecute people for using contraceptives–even married couples!

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Here are some highlights from what the press uncovered over the last week. While working under Republican presidents, John Roberts:

*supported regulatory changes that would have permitted the federal funding of discrimination against women, minorities, people with disabilities, and older Americans (Washington Post, July 26 );
argued that Congress should strip the Supreme Court of authority to rule on cases regarding abortion, school prayer, and certain school desegregation remedies (New York Times, July 28 );
*argued that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required “the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates” (New York Times, July 28 );
*criticized the Supreme Court decision forbidding organized prayer in public schools;
*sought to expand the ability of prosecutors and police to question suspects out of the presence of their attorneys (Washington Post, July 26 );
*and argued that the Justice Department should not intervene on behalf of female prisoners who were discriminated against in a job-training program (New York Times, July 28 );
…and this information comes from documents the White House willingly made available!”

So what now?

Cindylu – I always imagine PhD students sitting in coffee shops having deep conversations and rarely stressing out about anything. I’m certain that is not the case, but it’s a great thought.

Gustavo – I’m not sure if its really good form to reveal such information on a blog. Are you planning on taking/have taken it? Feel free to shoot me an email.

Moreno! See Oso, I told you he didn’t run off and join a hipster commune in Copenhagen. Silly Oso.