Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Sins of the Father
Here's a kinda smear (which is driving Jed Babbin, subbing for Hugh Hewitt on the radio, apoplectic) regarding Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and where he grew up. He lived, it turns out, in a "nearly all-white community" called Long Beach, Indiana, a "Mayberry-like community that was largely insulated from the racial strife of that era."
You mean that he didn't live in a ghetto or that he did?
The authors of the article speculate without reaching a conclusion (sometimes it's enough just to ask the question) whether Robert's white-bread upbringing led him to be the racist, sexist he may be today. Here's where they attempt to connect the dots:
Roberts' criticism of racial "quotas" in some documents from his work as a White House lawyer has alarmed civil rights groups and some Democrats, who say he may be a partisan for conservative causes. Other memos from his time in the Reagan Justice Department portray an attorney who urged his bosses to restrict affirmative action and Title IX sex discrimination lawsuits.
The part that gets me is that the article mentions the existence of restrictive covenants in property deeds, prohibiting selling the property to non-white, non-Christians about 15 times. Like that was something important and special to this town in Indiana. Do the authors not know that many deeds all over the country prior to 1964 contained those covenants. Do they not know that these remnants of our somewhat racist, anti-Semitic past were declared void (and unenforceable) as against public policy 40 years ago, before Judge Roberts was a teenager?
Do they really think that everyone from a nearly all-white Mayberry like town are more likely to be a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semite ? Isn't that very thought a little racist in itself?
You mean that he didn't live in a ghetto or that he did?
The authors of the article speculate without reaching a conclusion (sometimes it's enough just to ask the question) whether Robert's white-bread upbringing led him to be the racist, sexist he may be today. Here's where they attempt to connect the dots:
Roberts' criticism of racial "quotas" in some documents from his work as a White House lawyer has alarmed civil rights groups and some Democrats, who say he may be a partisan for conservative causes. Other memos from his time in the Reagan Justice Department portray an attorney who urged his bosses to restrict affirmative action and Title IX sex discrimination lawsuits.
The part that gets me is that the article mentions the existence of restrictive covenants in property deeds, prohibiting selling the property to non-white, non-Christians about 15 times. Like that was something important and special to this town in Indiana. Do the authors not know that many deeds all over the country prior to 1964 contained those covenants. Do they not know that these remnants of our somewhat racist, anti-Semitic past were declared void (and unenforceable) as against public policy 40 years ago, before Judge Roberts was a teenager?
Do they really think that everyone from a nearly all-white Mayberry like town are more likely to be a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semite ? Isn't that very thought a little racist in itself?
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 4:57 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks. I should get Lexis/Nexis before I comment on the law. Good posts the last two days. Who lit a fire under you?
Post a Comment
<< Home
