John Roberts, Discovered

Ed Whelan at NRO Bench Memos has been pouring over the latest document dump of JR's memos from his years in the Reagan White House counsel's office, and here is a summary of what he has found.

Equal pay/"comparable worth" - Roberts is against it:

“Comparable worth mandates nothing less than central planning of the economy....I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept. Their slogan may as well be ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'"

The Exclusionary Rule - Roberts isn't a proponent:

“[T]he [1982 National Institute of Justice] study shows that the exclusionary rule resulted in the release of 29% of felony drug arrestees in Los Angeles in one year—a far cry from the highly misleading 0.4% figure usually bandied about....This study should be highly useful in the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule.”

Voluntary school prayer - Roberts considers it perfectly constitutional:

“[The conclusion in Wallace v. Jaffree] that the Constitution prohibits such a moment of silent reflection—or even silent ‘prayer’—seems indefensible.”

Abortion - Roberts isn't a fan, either morally or legally (i.e. vis-a-vie Roe v. Wade).

Hack away, libs. Like you need a pretext.

[UPDATE 8/17: It didn't take Senator Depends long, did it?]

~ ~ ~

As NARAL limps off the stage (not that their website has gotten the memo...), the Left is regrouping again to launch a fresh attack on Judge Roberts on a broader front. Peter Kirsanow points to one likely gambit, which is itself a retread of his last round of Senate hearings for his appellate court slot in 2003:

Roberts was asked the following question during the Court of Appeals confirmation process: When Chief Justice Rehnquist was advising President Nixon on judicial nominations, he said that judges who are strict constructionists are generally hostile to civil-rights plaintiffs. Do you agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist's characterization? Why or why not? How do you define strict constructionism? Would you describe yourself as a strict constructionist?

The questioner was trying to pull a fast one on Roberts by implying that Rehnquist maintains that strict constructionists are hostile to civil-rights plaintiffs. Rehnquist, in fact, said nothing of the sort. Rather, Rehnquist had advised Nixon that strict constructionists wouldn't be as inclined as "broad constructionists" (i.e., proponents of a living Constitution) to entertain the kind of specious civil-rights theories that tend to lurk in the penumbras of the Constitution. Nothing in Rehnquist's advice to Nixon suggested that strict constructionists are somehow anti-civil rights.

The objective of the interrogatory to Roberts was clear (and not particularly clever): Bait Roberts into acknowledging that strict constructionists are anti-civil rights by misrepresenting the position of Roberts's former boss — someone Roberts is likely to hold in high esteem and with whom he's inclined to agree — and then equate Roberts's judicial philosophy to strict constructionism. And voilá! Roberts is anti-civil rights.

Hint: it didn't work. Any more than it, or any like it, is likely to work this time 'round. Perhaps that's why this story appeared in today's WaPo [HT: Double-H]:

In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.

Perhaps the NARAL disaster has convinced them that the old "fear and smear"/scorched-earth approach to the confirmation process is no longer viable in the post-media monopoly era; or maybe at the SCOTUS level, or perhaps just with such an apparantely "bullet"-proof nominee.

OTOH, Sean Rushton does provide us a useful historical reminder:

Here is how the major media was reporting the Clarence Thomas confirmation after Thomas’ initial testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

~ ~ ~

The New York Times, September 14, 1991: "Thomas to Win High Court Seat, Senators Predict"

The Washington Post, September 14, 1991: "Thomas Gaining Momentum as Week Ends; Senators' Gentle Questioning on Fourth Day of Hearings Suggests Doubts May Be Put Aside

The Associated Press, September 14, 1991: "Democrats Admit Thomas Heading Toward Senate Confirmation"

Los Angeles Times, September 14, 1991: "Democrats Talk as if Court Seat for Thomas is Assured"

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, September 14, 1991: "Frustrated Democrats take a softer line in questioning Thomas; Even skeptics seem to expect confirmation"

Yes, Justice Thomas was confirmed; but he endured a public relations bloodbath before getting there.

Judge Roberts can expect the same, plus a filibuster.

Bank on it.

It's in the memos.