SlowpokeBlog

In case you haven't seen the WaPo article, here are a few things Supreme Court nominee John Roberts had to say about women:

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap"...

...he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women the same as men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."

Roberts's thoughts on what he called "perceived problems" of gender bias are contained in a vast batch of documents...

Imagine if Roberts made similar comments on issues of race: "Roberts referred to the 'purported race gap'"... "Roberts said that the legal theory of directing employers to pay blacks the same as whites for work of comparable worth is 'staggeringly pernicious' and 'anti-capitalist.'"... "Roberts' thoughts on 'perceived problems' of racial bias are contained in a vast batch of documents"... If that were the case, I believe his chances would, rightly, dim significantly (though you never know for sure these days). I mention this not to diminish the very real problem of racism in this country, but to illustrate how discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you slice it. Because gender equity is perceived as some soft, fluffy fringe issue -- often by progressives who are otherwise astute -- the wimpy Dems will give him a pass. Why, to even criticize Roberts' anti-woman positions makes YOU the radical!

Roberts exemplifies the right-wing ruse of hiding behind "strict constructionism" while advancing a pre-existing, ultraconservative agenda. I am reminded of Adam Cohen's excellent piece in the NY Times from April, which is fortunately still available to the public here. A quote:

Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go.

This guy is a '50s-era dinosaur who is dangerously unqualified for the 21st-century Supreme Court. The Dems should not worry about being seen as "obstructionist," because the American public doesn't give a fig. Mark my words, if he is confirmed, we'll be asking ourselves, "How did we let this happen?"