What is it about this guy, it seems that every day a new headline is released about documents that have come out we find more and more evidence of his lack of respect for women’s rights and equality. Yesterday, you’ll remember that he wrote a memo wondering if “encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good.” Today, memos show that he scoffed at the idea of making O’Connor Supreme Court Chief Justice.

As a lawyer in the Reagan White House, John Roberts scoffed at the notion of elevating Supreme Court Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor to chief justice as a way to close a political gender gap, calling it a “crass political consideration.”

Now, I don’t disagree that this would have been a cheap pander, but as a White House lawyer, wouldn’t you expect his objection to be more legally based? And when you see this along with his attitudes toward other women’s and civil rights issues, it makes you wonder what this guy really stands for.

On another topic, Roberts, who was nominated as a justice by
President Bush last month, advised the White House to strike language from a description of a housing bill that referred to the “fundamental right to be free from discrimination.” He said that “there of course is no such right.”

I suppose the Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t very popular in his office. In fact the memos give us more of his personal opinions on what he calls fundamental rights:

“Fundamental rights” is a legal concept that has been used to justify a broad array of civil rights under the Constitution, including a right to privacy.

Noting that the proposed administration bill would justify penalties by pointing to a “fundamental right to be free from discrimination,” Roberts advised that the language be deleted.

“There is of course no such right; at the very least ‘illegal’ should modify ‘discrimination,’” Roberts wrote. “More significantly, ‘fundamental right’ is a legal term of art triggering strict judicial scrutiny.”

This is really important, privacy will be the number one issue that the Court will have to face in the coming years and the better part of term Roberts would serve if confirmed. Yet, we’re planning to confirm someone who doesn’t give any credit to the idea that protections of privacy do exist in the Constitution, a presumption that has fueled many equal rights cases including Lawrence v. Texas being the most recent.

The reason privacy will be most important is for two fronts, the first is the continued struggle for equal rights, especially by Gay and Lesbian groups. Secondly, privacy will determine how the government uses the new technology being created every day and will determine the future of causes such as internet anonymity, government viewing of email, and other means of collecting information that a reasonable person would expect to be private, at least without a warrant.

I think we’re being subdued into thinking Roberts poses no threat; he’s a nice guy and a very smart one at that. I’m sure when you meet him he comes off as a very likable person. However, his memos are speaking for himself at this point, and Democrats with only these documents ”never mind the thousands of pages from when he served as a lawyer for the Solicitor General which have been unreleased ”have plenty of questions to ask in September. We shouldn’t let ourselves be tricked into thinking this guy isn’t so bad, as a replacement for someone like O’Connor, we’re getting a conservative activist, a foot soldier in Reagan’s army, and someone who has a hard time accepting privacy, women’s, and equal rights. Is that a Supreme Court Justice we’re willing to live with?