Memo at Reagan Library Sheds Light on Roberts's Civil Rights Views

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nysun.com/article/17393

WASHINGTON - While an associate counsel in the Reagan White House, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts Jr., made an intellectual argument for limiting the application of federal anti-discrimination laws, but he counseled the administration that for political reasons it should not adopt his view.

The advice from Judge Roberts is contained in a July 24, 1985, memorandum he wrote to the White House counsel, Fred Fielding. The two-page memo was obtained by The New York Sun yesterday from the Reagan Library, which houses a veritable treasure trove of documents that Judge Roberts handled during his four-year stint at the White House.

The Simi Valley, Calif., library lists hundreds of files prepared by Mr. Roberts on subjects ranging from the Abscam bribery scandal to humanitarian assistance to Nicaragua. About 4,200 pages of the files are available to the public, but the vast majority of his documents, numbering in the tens of thousands or more, are still awaiting processing.

Senate Democrats have said they will ask for full access to the records, but an archivist said the nonpublic files will be released only upon the request of the Bush administration.

The memo obtained by the Sun deals with legislation proposed in the wake of a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that interpreted the federal law against sex discrimination in education, known as Title IX, to apply only to the "specific program" at a particular school that benefited from federal assistance.

Civil rights advocates decried the ruling in Grove City College v. Bell because it threatened to leave the academic and athletic programs at some schools outside the scope of federal gender-equity mandates. Some warned that the court's rationale could undercut anti-discrimination laws across the board.

Some conservatives also criticized the decision. They argued that only schools taking direct aid from the government should be subject to federal civil rights laws. Grove City College had deliberately rejected federal help, but some students had accepted financial aid.

Judge Roberts sided with the conservative critics, at least in theory. "There is a good deal of intuitive appeal to the argument," he wrote. "Triggering coverage of an institution on the basis of its accepting students who receive federal aid is not too onerous if only the admissions office is covered. If the entire institution is to be covered, it should be on the basis of something more solid than federal aid to the students."

However, the stampede to overturn Grove City College proved to be too strong for the Reagan administration to resist. Senator Kennedy introduced a bill called "the Civil Rights Restoration Act," which proposed to reverse the court's holding not just for colleges and universities but across the board, subjecting any entity doing business with the federal government to the full panoply of anti-discrimination laws.

A Republican senator of Kansas, Robert Dole, countered with a bill that would have reversed the program-by-program aspect of Grove City College, but only for educational institutions.

After some debate, the Reagan White House endorsed Mr. Dole's proposal. Some conservatives were up in arms, including a former secretary of education, Terrell Bell. He wrote to the White House urging it to push for more latitude for schools like Grove City College. It fell to Judge Roberts to propose a response.

After expressing his agreement with Mr. Bell, Judge Roberts wrote, "As a practical matter, however, I do not think the administration can revisit the issue at this late date. ... Reversing our position on that issue at this point would precipitate a firestorm of criticism, with little if any chance of success."

In his memo, Judge Roberts also took a swipe at Mr. Kennedy's legislation, saying it would "radically expand the civil rights laws to areas of private conduct never before considered covered."

The battle over the civil rights legislation continued for several years, but ultimately Mr. Kennedy prevailed. His bill passed in March 1988. Reagan vetoed it and his veto was overridden.

A co-president of the National Women's Law Center, Nancy Duff Campbell, said she was disturbed by the nominee's description of Mr. Kennedy's bill as radical. "That's pretty distressing that he would say that. That's the bill that ultimately passed. That's settled law," she said. "This memorandum does raise concerns about what his views are on civil rights law."

Judge Roberts also kept a file on at least one other contentious civil rights issue, the conflict over the government's right to strip the tax exemption of Bob Jones University because of its ban on interracial dating. That file is not among those presently available for review, according to the library's listing.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

http://www.nysun.com/article/17393

WASHINGTON - While an associate counsel in the Reagan White House, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts Jr., made an intellectual argument for limiting the application of federal anti-discrimination laws, but he counseled the administration that for political reasons it should not adopt his view.

The advice from Judge Roberts is contained in a July 24, 1985, memorandum he wrote to the White House counsel, Fred Fielding. The two-page memo was obtained by The New York Sun yesterday from the Reagan Library, which houses a veritable treasure trove of documents that Judge Roberts handled during his four-year stint at the White House.

The Simi Valley, Calif., library lists hundreds of files prepared by Mr. Roberts on subjects ranging from the Abscam bribery scandal to humanitarian assistance to Nicaragua. About 4,200 pages of the files are available to the public, but the vast majority of his documents, numbering in the tens of thousands or more, are still awaiting processing.

Senate Democrats have said they will ask for full access to the records, but an archivist said the nonpublic files will be released only upon the request of the Bush administration.

The memo obtained by the Sun deals with legislation proposed in the wake of a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that interpreted the federal law against sex discrimination in education, known as Title IX, to apply only to the "specific program" at a particular school that benefited from federal assistance.

Civil rights advocates decried the ruling in Grove City College v. Bell because it threatened to leave the academic and athletic programs at some schools outside the scope of federal gender-equity mandates. Some warned that the court's rationale could undercut anti-discrimination laws across the board.

Some conservatives also criticized the decision. They argued that only schools taking direct aid from the government should be subject to federal civil rights laws. Grove City College had deliberately rejected federal help, but some students had accepted financial aid.

Judge Roberts sided with the conservative critics, at least in theory. "There is a good deal of intuitive appeal to the argument," he wrote. "Triggering coverage of an institution on the basis of its accepting students who receive federal aid is not too onerous if only the admissions office is covered. If the entire institution is to be covered, it should be on the basis of something more solid than federal aid to the students."

However, the stampede to overturn Grove City College proved to be too strong for the Reagan administration to resist. Senator Kennedy introduced a bill called "the Civil Rights Restoration Act," which proposed to reverse the court's holding not just for colleges and universities but across the board, subjecting any entity doing business with the federal government to the full panoply of anti-discrimination laws.

A Republican senator of Kansas, Robert Dole, countered with a bill that would have reversed the program-by-program aspect of Grove City College, but only for educational institutions.

After some debate, the Reagan White House endorsed Mr. Dole's proposal. Some conservatives were up in arms, including a former secretary of education, Terrell Bell. He wrote to the White House urging it to push for more latitude for schools like Grove City College. It fell to Judge Roberts to propose a response.

After expressing his agreement with Mr. Bell, Judge Roberts wrote, "As a practical matter, however, I do not think the administration can revisit the issue at this late date. ... Reversing our position on that issue at this point would precipitate a firestorm of criticism, with little if any chance of success."

In his memo, Judge Roberts also took a swipe at Mr. Kennedy's legislation, saying it would "radically expand the civil rights laws to areas of private conduct never before considered covered."

The battle over the civil rights legislation continued for several years, but ultimately Mr. Kennedy prevailed. His bill passed in March 1988. Reagan vetoed it and his veto was overridden.

A co-president of the National Women's Law Center, Nancy Duff Campbell, said she was disturbed by the nominee's description of Mr. Kennedy's bill as radical. "That's pretty distressing that he would say that. That's the bill that ultimately passed. That's settled law," she said. "This memorandum does raise concerns about what his views are on civil rights law."

Judge Roberts also kept a file on at least one other contentious civil rights issue, the conflict over the government's right to strip the tax exemption of Bob Jones University because of its ban on interracial dating. That file is not among those presently available for review, according to the library's listing.

Now that Kerry has requested documents, lets just see if the brainy wunderkind passes the litmus test..............

by the way, I LOVE this:

The battle over the civil rights legislation continued for several years, but ultimately Mr. Kennedy prevailed. His bill passed in March 1988. Reagan vetoed it and his veto was overridden.

for once, the good guys win....*sigh*

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Now that Kerry has requested documents, lets just see if the brainy wunderkind passes the litmus test..............

by the way, I LOVE this:
for once, the good guys win....*sigh*

That's becasue we still had control of the Senate.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

That's becasue we still had control of the Senate.

yes I know, dont remind me......I really HATE the way the world is going...

[strandinthewind]

Don't you all think that even if the D's had control of both houses, they could not impeach W as they cannot nail him on anything illegal except perhaps Iraq and as I always maintain, the D's are just as culpable in that fiasco so there is no way they will feed on their own (esp. Clintons and Kerry) just to get rid of W. Plus, impeachment is academic because the next few in line are hard ass R's

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Don't you all think that even if the D's had control of both houses, they could not impeach W as they cannot nail him on anything illegal except perhaps Iraq and as I always maintain, the D's are just as culpable in that fiasco so there is no way they will feed on their own (esp. Clintons and Kerry) just to get rid of W. Plus, impeachment is academic because the next few in line are hard ass R's

Jason, Im gonna say this as nicely as I can: why do you keep saying "the D's are just as culpable in that fiasco so there is no way they will feed on their own"
when the Democrats were trusting the P-freakin-resident to give them ACCURATE info on Iraq???? If they voted a certain way, it was because they went with the info they were given, which YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO, was manufactured to promote an agenda......The Bush Administration certainly took lessons from Old Mother Russia when it came to PROPAGANDA....therefore, I do NOT (REPEAT NOT) hold the Dems culpable. The fault lies ENTIRELY with the BUSHIES. There is a MONUMENTAL difference between Clinton relying on info that was later proven faulty and Bush promoting the same info he darn well KNEW was faulty. As far as I am concerned, let the feeding frenzy begin. Any Dems that voted FOR Iraq that knew better, they should go down too. But I betcha they didnt know, but rather were duped by the Bushie Propaganda Juggernaut.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason, Im gonna say this as nicely as I can: why do you keep saying "the D's are just as culpable in that fiasco so there is no way they will feed on their own"
when the Democrats were trusting the P-freakin-resident to give them ACCURATE info on Iraq???? If they voted a certain way, it was because they went with the info they were given, which YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO, was manufactured to promote an agenda......The Bush Administration certainly took lessons from Old Mother Russia when it came to PROPAGANDA....therefore, I do NOT (REPEAT NOT) hold the Dems culpable. The fault lies ENTIRELY with the BUSHIES. There is a MONUMENTAL difference between Clinton relying on info that was later proven faulty and Bush promoting the same info he darn well KNEW was faulty. As far as I am concerned, let the feeding frenzy begin. Any Dems that voted FOR Iraq that knew better, they should go down too. But I betcha they didnt know, but rather were duped by the Bushie Propaganda Juggernaut.

Then take this equally as nicely - Clinton with the blessing if not urging of Kerry killed thousands in the 98 missle strikes and those were based essentially on the same evidence, which I suggest all knew was BS even then. But, you are such a blind Clinton supporter that you cannot even fathom that Clinton knew it was BS as well. I mean the same arguements were around then about the intelligence being BS. I get that W invaded a country, but Clinton and the D's killed based on the same threat as evidenced by the evidence. But, you will never ever admit that - so what is the point trying to state the facts to you.

Moreover, how many D's gave W the power to go into Iraq and then sidestepped when W screwed it up? I can assure you those same sidesteppers would have basked in the glory had W succeeded.

Finally, my proof is in the pudding. No one believed Kerry when he offered his "we were mislead" schpeel.

Thus, bitch about it all you want, but the D's cannot impeach on Iraq and they know it.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Then take this equally as nicely - Clinton with the blessing if not urging of Kerry killed thousands in the 98 missle strikes and those were based essentially on the same evidence, which I suggest all knew was BS even then. But, you are such a blind Clinton supporter that you cannot even fathom that Clinton knew it was BS as well. I mean the same arguements were around then about the intelligence being BS. I get that W invaded a country, but Clinton and the D's killed based on the same threat as evidenced by the evidence. But, you will never ever admit that - so what is the point trying to state the facts to you.

Moreover, how many D's gave W the power to go into Iraq and then sidestepped when W screwed it up? I can assure you those same sidesteppers would have basked in the glory had W succeeded.

Finally, my proof is in the pudding. No one believed Kerry when he offered his "we were mislead" schpeel.

Thus, bitch about it all you want, but the D's cannot impeach on Iraq and they know it.

here's the problem with your argument: the Dems only found out it was faulty AFTER Clinton took action. Bush KNEW (KNEW) it was faulty before he went in.///two different things. Therefore: no matter HOW MANY DEMS voted for Iraq, I'd venture to say they didnt have all the information......considering how adept this Administration is at CREATING their own reality, you can hardly blame the Dems for believing them....sorry......as an attorney Jason I know you KNOW that a major part of fact finding is WHAT a party knew and WHEN did they know it? That is a HUGE deciding factor.....

btw: I think Kerry is having the last laff re: "we were misled" NUFF SAID

finally, the motivation for IMPEACHMENT doesnt necessarilly need to hang on Iraq....now we have Rove and Cheney's Aide to thank...........but, for the record: If any President ever deserved to be impeached, its the MORON, G.W.Bush.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

here's the problem with your argument: the Dems only found out it was faulty AFTER Clinton took action. Bush KNEW (KNEW) it was faulty before he went in.///two different things. Therefore: no matter HOW MANY DEMS voted for Iraq, I'd venture to say they didnt have all the information......considering how adept this Administration is at CREATING their own reality, you can hardly blame the Dems for believing them....sorry......as an attorney Jason I know you KNOW that a major part of fact finding is WHAT a party knew and WHEN did they know it? That is a HUGE deciding factor.....

btw: I think Kerry is having the last laff re: "we were misled" NUFF SAID

finally, the motivation for IMPEACHMENT doesnt necessarilly need to hang on Iraq....now we have Rove and Cheney's Aide to thank...........but, for the record: If any President ever deserved to be impeached, its the MORON, G.W.Bush.

No, Kerry tried to play both sides against the middle and it burnd him. I truly think if he had said in 20 simples words or less that he had been hoodwinked and could prove W made up info. - the public may have cared enough to believe him. But he did not and they did not. I will always maintain Kerry, not W, beat Kerry.

Also, the D's will never do it and the reason is Bush used essentially the same info. and Clinton - that is a fact and I cannot believe you actually are arguing differently. But, whatever. But, why take my word for it:

Bill Clinton on Bush uranium line: 'Everybody makes mistakes'
Former president accepts explanation on State of the Union

WASHINGTON (CNN) --The White House, attacked by critics for a now-retracted line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union address, has gotten some surprising support from former President Clinton.

"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."

Clinton had called King to honor his guest, former Republican Sen. Bob Dole, on Dole's 80th birthday.

Clinton's comments took other Democrats by surprise, many of whom have questioned whether the Bush administration misled the public about the threat from Saddam Hussein. The uranium claim was made at a time Bush was trying to rally world support for military action against Iraq and was used to suggest that Saddam was acting on his nuclear ambitions.

Wednesday, some members of the Clinton administration indicated they didn't agree with their former boss's take on the controversy.

"In some critical respects, intelligence was overstated, and it's important for the administration to resolve these questions," said Sandy Berger, the national security adviser under Clinton.

He said Bush needs to have a news conference to fully explain how the claim about uranium made its way into the nationally televised address, despite CIA concerns about the quality of the intelligence.

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta agreed. Unless Bush appears before the America people, the "drip, drip, drip is just going to continue."

But former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright didn't sound so sure. "The most important thing is to move forward," she said. "I agree with President Clinton on that."

The three came to the Capitol Wednesday to present a foreign policy paper at the request of Senate Democrats.

Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Earlier Tuesday, Bush's No. 2 national security aide took partial responsibility for allowing the inclusion of the dubious claim in the State of the Union address.

The admission by Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley marked the first time the White House had taken any blame in the matter. An administration official told CNN that Hadley offered his resignation, but Bush didn't accept it.

CIA takes blame

Until now, the Bush administration has said it was the CIA that permitted the shaky intelligence to get into the speech, and CIA Director George Tenet has publicly taken full responsibility, although he reportedly told a Senate panel in a closed hearing that he never read the final draft of the speech before Bush delivered it.

Democrats seized on Tuesday's admission, with Howard Dean -- one of the leading Democratic presidential hopefuls -- calling on Hadley and any other administration officials involved in the flap to step down.

"It is unacceptable for anyone who misled the president on an issue as significant as a rationale for war to continue to retain a post in government," Dean said in a written statement.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Tony Welch suggested the president should be held responsible for the retracted claim.

"First they blamed the Brits. Then, CIA Director George Tenet walked the plank," Welch said. "Now, the Bush White House is dragging former Cheney aide and Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley forward to take the fall for the president's bogus claim in this year's State of the Union address."

Welch added: "Apparently, at the Bush White House, the buck stops everywhere but the president's desk."

Hadley gave his admission to reporters at an off-camera briefing during a moment when the nation's attention was focused on a decidedly different Iraqi story: the deaths of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, in a firefight with U.S. troops.

Hadley, who was responsible for vetting Bush's State of the Union address, said he should have deleted the reference to Iraq's attempts to buy uranium because the CIA had warned him months earlier -- in two memos and a phone call from Tenet himself -- that the claim was weak.

Those warnings were made to him before a speech the president gave in Cincinnati in early October, and he said he failed to recall them three months later.

"The high standards the president set were not met," Hadley said.

He said he had spoken with the president about the matter and that Bush expressed confidence in him and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Tenet has said the line in Bush's address was technically accurate because it cited British intelligence, although he said the CIA's own investigation of those same allegations had led the agency to decide that the evidence was inconclusive. Britain stands by its claims.

--Congressional Producer Steve Turnham contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...nton.iraq.sotu

see also

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech

ansd here is a nice link to the video of Clinton telling America why he starting bombing Iraq 12 hrs before his impeachment in fact, I think W lifted from this speech

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ton_12-16.html

Note - for the casual reader - I am arguing this from the reasons the D's cannot impeach Bush angle only.

As for the Plame thing, which I think you are referring to in your last sentence, no evidence at all links W or Cheny to that. It links Rove, but not directly unless someone roll over, which probably will not happen.

Finally, if being a moron were grounds for impeachement, we would have few politicians these days.

[irishgrl]

AGAIN: Clinton didnt know his info was faulty. Bush did. THAT is the difference. As I've said before, Bush had an agenda to get Saddam (and the oil) from the very beginning. Clinton had no such motivation. I most certainly CAN see the Dems agitating for impeachment, now more than ever when it becomes daily more clear what a LYING, MANIPULATIVE Administration we have. oh YES.

As for Kerry, I do think he could have explained himself better, but thats water over the dam at this point....but I repeat, I bet Kerry is LAFFING his BUTT OFF about Dumbya right now. Because in the end, he is being proven RIGHT. We were ALL misled (well, not me, I didnt trust Bush from the first)

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Don't you all think that even if the D's had control of both houses, they could not impeach W as they cannot nail him on anything illegal except perhaps Iraq and as I always maintain, the D's are just as culpable in that fiasco so there is no way they will feed on their own (esp. Clintons and Kerry) just to get rid of W. Plus, impeachment is academic because the next few in line are hard ass R's

Who's talking about impeachment? We're talking about Roberts confirmation.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Who's talking about impeachment? We're talking about Roberts confirmation.

I made the comment in the Rove dodging the bullet thread and Jason brought it over here too...

RE: Roberts, Ive signed at least two online petitions against his confirmation, but everything I've read so far looks like he's on track to be confirmed unless theres a really ugly skeleton lurking somewhere (hope hope)

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason, Im gonna say this as nicely as I can: why do you keep saying "the D's are just as culpable in that fiasco so there is no way they will feed on their own"

We're not even talking about Iraq in this thread though. How did we get on that? We're talking about the Supreme Court nominee.
Did Strandie just try to pull a Joe Scarborough? Naughty, naughty.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

We're not even talking about Iraq in this thread though. How did we get on that? We're talking about the Supreme Court nominee.
Did Strandie just try to pull a Joe Scarborough? Naughty, naughty.

Who is Joe Scarborough? and I believe he DID hijack this thread and I am guilty as well No more Iraq or Bush comments from me no matter HOW silly Jason's posts are

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

AGAIN: Clinton didnt know his info was faulty. Bush did. THAT is the difference. As I've said before, Bush had an agenda to get Saddam (and the oil) from the very beginning. Clinton had no such motivation. I most certainly CAN see the Dems agitating for impeachment, now more than ever when it becomes daily more clear what a LYING, MANIPULATIVE Administration we have. oh YES. . . . .

. . . and slaughtering hundreds if not thousands based on essentially the same info. 12 hours before the impeachment crap was not

In the end, I wish they would impeach W on his charade. I am just noting they never will because they have no clean hands, depsite your revisionist view of history.