WP: Documents Show Roberts Influence In Reagan Era

[visionary]

Hmmm this article seems a bit one sided.

Still there looks to be a lot of dirty ammo to be fired by the Democrats in the upcoming months.

Documents Show Roberts Influence In Reagan Era

By R. Jeffrey Smith, Jo Becker and Amy Goldstein

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A01

Newly released documents show that John G. Roberts Jr. was a significant backstage player in the legal policy debates of the early Reagan administration, confidently debating older Justice Department officials and supplying them with arguments and information that they used to wage a bureaucratic struggle for the president's agenda.

Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases; he argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the landmark law that bars sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletic programs; and he even counseled his boss on how to tell the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow that the administration was cutting off federal funding for the Atlanta center that bears his name.

The documents are from Roberts's 1981-1982 tenure as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith. Like previously reported memos from Roberts's stint in President Ronald Reagan's White House in the mid-1980s, the documents made available from the National Archives yesterday show a man in his mid-twenties deeply engaged in the conservative restructuring of government that the new president had promised.

To a greater extent than the White House documents previously released, the more than 15,000 pages of Justice Department memos show Roberts speaking at times in his own voice. In memos to the attorney general or senior officials of the Justice Department, Roberts argued for restrictions on the rights of prisoners to litigate their grievances; depicted as "judicial activism" a lower court's order requiring a sign-language interpreter for a hearing-impaired public school student who had already been given a hearing aid and tutors; and argued for wider latitude for prosecutors and police to question suspects out of the presence of their attorneys.

In the rare instances revealed in the documents in which Roberts disagreed with his superiors on the proper legal course to take on major social issues of the day, he advocated a more conservative tack.

In one instance, he wrote a memo to the attorney general urging Smith to disregard the recommendation of William Bradford Reynolds, the head of the agency's civil rights division, that the administration should intervene on behalf of female inmates in a sex discrimination case involving job training for prisoners.

"I recommend that you do not approve intervention in this case," Roberts wrote. He said that such a step would be inconsistent with the administration's belief in judicial restraint and that, if equal treatment for male and female prisoners was required, "the end result in this time of state prison budgets may be no programs for anyone." Besides, he said, private plaintiffs were already bringing suit.

On June 15, 1982, Roberts faulted the Justice Department for the outcome in Plyler v. Doe , in which the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law that had allowed school districts to deny enrollment to children who had entered the country illegally.

Roberts argued that if the solicitor general's office had taken a position in the case supporting the state of Texas "and the values of judicial restraint," it could have "altered the outcome of the case."

"In sum, this is a case in which our supposed litigation program to encourage judicial restraint did not get off the ground, and should have," Roberts wrote.

Much of Roberts's time at the Justice Department was taken up by the debate over GOP-sponsored bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases. He wrote repeatedly in opposition to the view, advanced by then-Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson, that the bills were unconstitutional. He scrawled "NO!" in the margins of an April 12, 1982, note Olson sent to Smith. In the memo, Olson observed that opposing the bills would "be perceived as a courageous and highly principled position, especially in the press."

Roberts drew a bracket around the paragraph, underlined the words "especially in the press," and wrote in the margin: "Real courage would be to read the Constitution as it should be read and not kowtow to the Tribes, Lewises and Brinks!"

The three appear to be to Harvard Law School professor Laurence H. Tribe, New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis and then-American Bar Association President David R. Brink, who opposed the bills.

Roberts added skeptical margin notes again when Olson wrote that the bills were unnecessary because the court now had more Republican-appointed members than it had in the 1960s, and was moving to the right as a result.

Roberts underlined the name of one of the Republican appointees Olson listed, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade , and drew an arrow connecting it to the word "abortion."

Later, then-counselor to the attorney general Kenneth W. Starr asked Roberts to prepare a memo that "marshals arguments in favor of Congress' power to control" the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Roberts noted as a result that his memo "was prepared from a standpoint of advocacy of congressional power . . . [and] does not purport to be an objective review of the issue."

Roberts approvingly cited comments by "Professor Scalia" -- then-University of Chicago law professor Antonin Scalia -- at a conference on the bills. Scalia "recognized that non-uniformity in the interpretation of federal law could be criticized as 'sloppy,' but asked: compared to what? Given the choice between non-uniformity and the uniform imposition of the judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade, Scalia was prepared to choose the former alternative."

Roberts also took issue with the view that bills restricting the court's jurisdiction would be unconstitutional because they interfere with "fundamental rights." "None of the pending bills concerning jurisdiction in abortion or school prayer cases directly burden the exercise of any fundamental rights," he wrote.

The department eventually adopted Olson's view.

In 1982, Roberts urged the attorney general not to back a Department of Education investigation of alleged sex discrimination in athletics at the University of Richmond.

Previously, the Carter administration had sided with the Education Department, arguing that Title IX gave the federal government wide authority over all programs at a federally funded university, whether the specific program received federal money or not.

But Roberts agreed with Reynolds's decision for the civil rights division not to appeal a contrary ruling by a district judge, arguing that "under Title IX, federal investigators cannot rummage willy-nilly through institutions, but can go only as far as the federal funds can go."

"The women's groups pressuring us to appeal would have regulatory agencies usurp power denied them by Congress to achieve an anti-discrimination goal. Under your leadership the Department is committed to opposing such legislation by the bureaucracy and that commitment should continue in this case," Roberts wrote.

In 1981, outgoing U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman Arthur Flemming wrote a report lauding the accomplishments of affirmative action. That document landed on Roberts's desk for a critique. He derided what he called the "perfectly circular" arguments in favor of affirmative action, as well as Flemming's contention that any affirmative action failures are caused not by inherent flaws but instead by sabotage.

"There is no recognition of the obvious reason for failure: the affirmative action program required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates," Roberts wrote. As a postscript, he added: "I have drafted an innocuous reply to Chairman Flemming. The report is attached, although I do not recommend reading it."

In September 1982, Roberts played the role of diplomatic coach, advising Smith on how to handle an upcoming meeting with Coretta Scott King, the widow of the slain civil rights leader. The Carter administration's Justice Department had supplied a $250,000 grant to the Atlanta-based King Center for Non-violent Social Change, to teach conflict resolution in the hopes of reducing violent crime.

The grant, approved in 1980, had run out and the Reagan administration planned not to renew it. Roberts, in a Sept. 16, 1982, memo, called the program "very poorly run" and said that it had only received funding because of "political ties" between King and Homer Broome Jr., a black Justice Department official. But rather than share those concerns bluntly with King, Roberts advised, Smith should instead tell her "there is simply no money available for additional funding," and "indicate support for the activities of the King Center, and even pleasure that the Justice Department was able to be of assistance in advancing" its goals.

The trusted role Roberts played at the Justice Department was evident from his first day on the job when he began helping prepare Sandra Day O'Connor for her nomination to the Supreme Court. Roberts has now been nominated to succeed her.

In a memo, he outlined a plan for O'Connor not unlike the one now being undertaken on his behalf: "The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the Court, but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments."

Staff writer Charles Lane and researcher Jill Bartscht contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602070_pf.html

[BlueTalon]

According to one of the FOX reporters, one Democrat strategist says that the main thing liberal Dems have against Roberts is the fact that conservatives like him so much.

I think all this document stuff is just so much fluff.

[Kilmer17]

This is precisely what an attorney SHOULD be doing.

I wonder if there was this kind of outrage over Ruth Bader Ginsbergs docs while she was Head Counsel for the ACLU?

Of course not. The GOP hated her politics, bu understood that political beliefs shouldnt be part of the equation for picking a SCOTUS judge. That rule only get's applied by Dems.

[jbooma]

The dems are just wasting their time, this guy is a lock

[Fred Jones]

Surprisingly, I have to agree with Jbooma on this one. The Democrats will not be able to block this nomination and all these articles don't mean a whole lot in the long run.

[Funkyalligator]

oh he will get approved...frankly...I'm sure that there really isn't anything important in the documents and the White House is holding them back just to piss off the dems...

And Kilmer17...politics has always been in the equation so lets not even go there....both sides have attacked eachothers nominations for various courts on political grounds so lets not lie to ourselves and say that the Repubs are above that...

[Kilmer17]

If Ruth Bader Ginsberg hadnt been unanimously approved, you might have a point. She steadfastly REFUSED to hand over documents or answer questions about specific political issues.

That was acceptable to the GOP back then and backed (obviously) by the Dems. But now, the shoe's on the other foot and SUPRISE!!!!! The Dems want different rules.

Sorry Funky, it's the Dems who play games like this. Not both sides.

[stevenaa]

News Flash!!!! President Bush's nominee for the SCOTUS appointment has a conservative bent. The nation is shocked at the revelation made public today and evidenced by past documents personally written and noted on by the SCOTUS candidate himself. When will the madness end????

[NavyDave]

We need two more people who think like this to replace the next justices retiring.

I'm hoping for the liberals to attempt a fillibuster so there can be a constitutional option so the next two Supreme court judges (Hopefully janice Brown) will sail thru.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

If Ruth Bader Ginsberg hadnt been unanimously approved, you might have a point. She steadfastly REFUSED to hand over documents or answer questions about specific political issues.

That was acceptable to the GOP back then and backed (obviously) by the Dems. But now, the shoe's on the other foot and SUPRISE!!!!! The Dems want different rules.

Sorry Funky, it's the Dems who play games like this. Not both sides.

96-3, not unanimous

I wouldn't attribute "games like this" to one party based on one example. Clinton took over 3 months to decide on Ginsburg, so he knew he had support when he chose her. He also had a Democratic majority in the Senate and Joe Biden as the Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

...And don't forget that the first judicial filibuster was conducted by Republicans against Abe Fortas in 1968...

In any case, I wouldn't attribute arguments over "political issues" to any particular party. This is the game that NARAL and the Christian Coalition like to play. Not even all the interest groups, it's the abortion groups that really take over this process. With the state of the law as it is now, NARAL has a lot more to lose, so they will put a lot of pressure on their Democratic allies to fight this nomination tooth and nail. That's just the way the issues are structured right now, so that's what you're going to see.

[Kilmer17]

Fortas was already a Supreme Court Justice. He was filibustered for his nomination to Chief over questions regarding ethical questions (which turned out to be true), not regarding his political beliefs. And it wasnt a straight GOP filibuster.

You can claim Clinton took 3 months on Ginsberg, but Id say Bush has taken 5 years on Roberts. 70+ Senators were consulted on the pick.

In the end this wont matter. He's going to sail through with ease. But I hope the next one (who you can bet will be a super right wing Conservative) simply tells the Dems to f@#k off if they ask his political views or ask for documents.

[Destino]

Any word on if the Dems even plan to try to block the nomination? I've heard they won't and that many plan to support Bush's pick.

[Kilmer17]

That's the likely outcome Des. It's all just BS posturing at this point.

Trying to gain extra time to try and find an illegal nanny or some other scandal.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Fortas was already a Supreme Court Justice. He was filibustered for his nomination to Chief over questions regarding ethical questions (which turned out to be true), not regarding his political beliefs. And it wasnt a straight GOP filibuster.

You can claim Clinton took 3 months on Ginsberg, but Id say Bush has taken 5 years on Roberts. 70+ Senators were consulted on the pick.

In the end this wont matter. He's going to sail through with ease. But I hope the next one (who you can bet will be a super right wing Conservative) simply tells the Dems to f@#k off if they ask his political views or ask for documents.

...and 70+ Senators will vote to confirm him.

It might give everyone a thrill to tell the Dems to f@#k off, but in the end, it's going to be a lot easier for this nomination and even the next one if you just release some documents, let the most liberal Senators get on their soapbox, get through a cloture vote, and get confirmed.

This is the Senate, not all-out war. There's easier ways to win than blowing things up.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by DjTj

...and 70+ Senators will vote to confirm him.

It might give everyone a thrill to tell the Dems to f@#k off, but in the end, it's going to be a lot easier for this nomination and even the next one if you just release some documents, let the most liberal Senators get on their soapbox, get through a cloture vote, and get confirmed.

This is the Senate, not all-out war. There's easier ways to win than blowing things up.

The issue is that even if you release some (like Roberts has) the nutbags will still cry that they havent ALL been released. I dont like that precedent. Ginsberg didnt release ANY of hers. That should be the rule of thumb.

[NavyDave]

Boxer, Durbin and Shumer are three expecting to use delaying tactics.

I'm hoping Durbin does so we can win his seat

[Dexter's Better]

Anyone who believes in individual rights should not be opposed to this guy -- no matter what side of the political arena you fall into.

[NavyDave]

What like about him is that he doesn't read the constitution while on hallucigens and see things that aren't there

[Dexter's Better]

Originally posted by NavyDave

What like about him is that he doesn't read the constitution while on hallucigens and see things that aren't there

Amen.

[Predicto]

The funniest thing about all of this is how the conservatives are chattering back and forth, so angry at the Democrats' dirty tricks, outrageous posturing and delaying tactics.

Except there haven't been any dirty tricks, outrageous posturing or delaying tactics. People are just ASSUMING that they are going to happen, and already have their outrage meter set on full throttle.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Predicto

The funniest thing about all of this is how the conservatives are chattering back and forth, so angry at the Democrats' dirty tricks, outrageous posturing and delaying tactics.

Except there haven't been any dirty tricks, outrageous posturing or delaying tactics. People are just ASSUMING that they are going to happen, and already have their outrage meter set on full throttle.

So the Dems havent asked for Documents?

[Larry]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

That was acceptable to the GOP back then and backed (obviously) by the Dems. But now, the shoe's on the other foot and SUPRISE!!!!! The Dems want different rules.

Sorry Funky, it's the Dems who play games like this. Not both sides.

Originally posted by me (in another thread)

Since '98, the rules for committee votes on nominees have been changed four times by the GOP.

For decades, if both Senators from the state where the nominee is being appointed disaproved of the nominee, then that nominee's name never came out of committee. This was regardless of the vote in the committee. (Senate rules also prohibited people from revealing that a nominee was being vetoed by this method.)

In '98, the GOP decided that Clinton's record of getting 56% of his nominees confirmed was too high. They changed the rules so that it only took one Senator to block a vote. During his last two years, less than half of his nominees were voted on.

Then Bush got elected. Can't have people using the same rules against Republican nominees, so they changed the rule back to where it took two Senators to block. (or Whoppi Goldberg.)

Then they changed the rules again, so that even if two Senators objected, that still didn't block a vote, it simply became "advisory".

Then they changed the rules for the committee votes, to eliminate the requirement that a nominee had to have at least one vote from each party.

Yeah, don't you just hate it when a bunch of politicians want to change the system just to increase their political party's power at any cost?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Isn't this a replay of other threads? Lefties bashing republicans, vice versa?

[Kilmer17]

I agree Larry. Let's let every nominee get a vote up or down from now on. Agreed?

[Larry]

Originally posted by NavyDave

What like about him is that he doesn't read the constitution while on hallucigens and see things that aren't there

You mean, like,

• The federal government's authority to threaten retaliation against doctors who comply with a state's Constitution.
  
• A clause that prohibits a city's government from deciding what's in the interests of that particular city, and using a legal mechanism that's been used for over 100 years to impliment it.
  
• The Constitutional authority for a President to decide who the fourth and fifth ammendments do and don't apply to, and the authority to make people "disapear".
  
• The government's ability to decide that marijuana grown in California, for the purpose of being given to someine in California, is "interstate commerce".
  
• The federal authority to prohibit states from passing environmental legislation that's tougher than what federal lobbyists want.
  

Those kind of things?