Smarty-Pants
|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Most of what we know about what John Roberts has ever really thought is contained in memos he wrote when he served as a young lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department and White House. In these documents, a real personality shines through -- a smart-ass smarty-pants who mocked or disdained nearly anything related to civil rights, women's rights, liberals, etc. We've all seen this type -- in college conservative clubs, on right-wing talk radio, at Federalist Society events: the know-it-all who sneers and snorts.
On Tuesday, Roberts tried to distance himself a bit from the snotty young elitist punk of those 80's memos, sometimes saying he was just reciting administration policy (though the record shows he was sometimes to the right of more senior Reaganauts like Brad Reynolds and Ken Starr), and also referring to the period as a time "when we were 25 and had all the answers." Roberts was cool and rational most of the time, the very face of the Washington legal establishment, and sometimes strong and assertive in the face of thundering, sputtering liberal lions who tried to take him on.
But we still don't know who he his -- and how much of that disdainful, elitist young right-winger still lurks inside. I don't think anyone, let alone this group of Senators, is going to get Roberts to explode and admit that that he ordered the Code Red.
Though it's important for those who believe in fair justice and our constitutional rights to keep pressing Roberts, I think now that Roberts is the replacement for the right-wing Rehnquist, and not for O'Connor, many people are just getting through this and looking ahead to the next battle -- one that counts more. Will another Scalia/Thomas or another Roberts replace the more confusing but occasionally correct-voting and justice-seeking O'Connor? R. Novak reported this week that Bush met at the White House with one of his most extreme nominees, Judge Priscilla Owen. Given that, and Bush's past record of loading up extremists no matter what, we probably will have a battle on our hands. Outrageous detention policies, and solidification of conservative-Latino ties aside, I guess we have to hope for Al Gonzales.
On Tuesday, Roberts tried to distance himself a bit from the snotty young elitist punk of those 80's memos, sometimes saying he was just reciting administration policy (though the record shows he was sometimes to the right of more senior Reaganauts like Brad Reynolds and Ken Starr), and also referring to the period as a time "when we were 25 and had all the answers." Roberts was cool and rational most of the time, the very face of the Washington legal establishment, and sometimes strong and assertive in the face of thundering, sputtering liberal lions who tried to take him on.
But we still don't know who he his -- and how much of that disdainful, elitist young right-winger still lurks inside. I don't think anyone, let alone this group of Senators, is going to get Roberts to explode and admit that that he ordered the Code Red.
Though it's important for those who believe in fair justice and our constitutional rights to keep pressing Roberts, I think now that Roberts is the replacement for the right-wing Rehnquist, and not for O'Connor, many people are just getting through this and looking ahead to the next battle -- one that counts more. Will another Scalia/Thomas or another Roberts replace the more confusing but occasionally correct-voting and justice-seeking O'Connor? R. Novak reported this week that Bush met at the White House with one of his most extreme nominees, Judge Priscilla Owen. Given that, and Bush's past record of loading up extremists no matter what, we probably will have a battle on our hands. Outrageous detention policies, and solidification of conservative-Latino ties aside, I guess we have to hope for Al Gonzales.
And frankly, I didn't see the same "sneering" you did in his memos. Care for individual citations?
The one I see trotted out most often, the "women lawyers" line, was clearly a joke. And, as someone who's known a few women lawyers, actually rather funny. (Given the multitude of jokes women tell about men in the public life, and the fact that men and women joke about one another rather freely in private, I wouldn't say it's out of place in a memo.)
I'm sure there's some stuff in there that's objectionable, but you react with such vitriol that I'd like to know what, exactly, has your dander up.
As far as "Elitist"?
Is that really such a bad thing? I mean, personally, I'd want one of the 'elite' to be named to the Supreme Court, of all places.
Definition of elitism (from dictionary.com):
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve FAVORED treatment by virtue of their PERCIEVED superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
3. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Elitism is an ill within our society-the belief that certain people deserve better treatment than others due to social or economic standing.
Secondly, While John Roberts will probably get confirmed, he has been extremely evasive. Its as if the people don't have a right to know how Roberts will lead the court. This is one of the most powerful positions in America- we have the right to know how Roberts will discern cases. It is true that it would not be plausible that Bush nominate a liberal-but that doesn't mean Roberts should get a free ride into the Chief Justice position. If all he chooses to say about his judicial philosophy is that he is a "strict constructionist" or a "conservative jurist with an originalist view of the constitution," that doesn't tell us much. Perhaps he deserves a no vote if he is not more forthcoming.
But let's take Definition 1:
"1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve FAVORED treatment by virtue of their PERCIEVED superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."
Since we have our choice between "certain persons" or "members of certain classes or groups", let's pick "certain persons".
Since we have our choice between "intellect, social status, or financial resources", let's go with "intellect".
And thus, we have:
"1. The belief that certain persons deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect."
Does that sound so disagreeable? I think not, when we're talking about being nominated to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Due to his considerable intellect and his unsurpassed credentials as a member of the 'intellectual elite', I believe that John Roberts does indeed 'deserve favored treatment'.
Elitism does not necessarily imply some negative stain of arbitrary distinctions meant to hoard power in the hands of the few; it can also be an essential manifestation of meritocracy.
Secondly, I don't believe I ever said that all those definitions fit an elitist. I just merely listed the definition.
The context that the author used the word elitist-I believe-was in referring to Roberts mindset-which I disagree with. Surely, people are made differently. Some have a greater initiative to pursue reading and writing- while others are more apt to pursue a trade or a craft.
The point I was trying to make is that someone who is more skilled with their mind vs. someone who is more skilled with their hands should not be given superior treatment in our society-nor should they think that they are a better person. That is what I think of when I think of an elitist. Somebody who believes that because they are better than others because they have gone through the ivy league system. That is a fundamentally wrong and immoral minset.
Finally, most often elitism is given a bad rap (rightly so)- because most often the elites don't understand or care about the social ills in society. Take the former first lady's comment a week or so ago, when she told the press that the refugees from the Hurricane are underpriveleged anyways-so things are working out better for them. (By the way- that is a paraphrase).
Finally, I would generally fault our so-called system of meritocracy. Our system is probably much closer to a plutocracy.
I haven't had time to point our commenter to the citations he seeks. Gee, there are scores of articles, many in the NY Times and Washington Post, wading through the Reagan era files and illustrating my point. Senators' questions at the hearing also recited them. Here's one sentence from yesterday's NY Times summing it up:
Judge Roberts was repeatedly confronted with documents he wrote as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. They were studded with caustic comments, uniformly took conservative positions and frequently argued for an understanding of the Constitution starkly at odds with the Supreme Court doctrine of the day.
Link
A citation from the NYT that some people don't like things from his Reagan-era memos is not helpful; we know that some people don't like it, such as PFAW.
I want to get into the actual quotes from the memos with you -- which ones you feel are caustic, which you feel are snotty, etcetera, so we can hash that out.
Otherwise, I think you should withdraw your original ad-hominem-laden diatribe against the man.
So here's a good collection:
Link
Plenty of what I'm talking about is here -- Roberts' tone is know-it-all and dismissive and his views extreme. (I agree with you that the joke about women lawyers is of no consequence; I'm not relying on that.)
I appreciate your interest in engaging on specifics. I do think it's permissible on this blog to express an opinion without attaching all the research. I certainly stand by what I said.