John Roberts’s Affirmative Action File Goes Up In Smoke
John Roberts’s Affirmative Action File Goes Up In Smoke
John Roberts has a checkered history when it comes to civil rights – including making disparaging remarks about Martin Luther King Jr.’s widow. Now, a file containing all the papers relating to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts work on affirmative action in the 1980s has gone missing from the Ronald Regan Presidential Library after it was reviewed by two lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department.
It’s a strange story, but here’s what we know so far:
1. No one at the archives remembers the file being returned.
2. It’s very unusual for the archive to lose a file.
3. The two administration lawyers are now helping the archives “reconstruct the file” from their notes.
4. The White House and the Justice Department refuse to name the lawyers involved.
Are we supposed to believe that this file magically disappeared?
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
88 Responses to “John Roberts’s Affirmative Action File Goes Up In Smoke”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Breaking news: FOX is claiming that Sandy Berger smuggled the documents in his pants.
August 17th, 2005 at 10:36 amIn addition to these papers, the questions remain about Roberts' Bush I era papers. The White House's refusal to make them available may have less to do with attorney-client privilege and more to do with protecting the President's father.
For the details, see:
"The Father, The Son and the Holy Notes"
August 17th, 2005 at 10:38 amSomehow or other, bushies will try to blame Clinton for this one too.
August 17th, 2005 at 10:41 amJon, you beat me to it! I was going to suggest asking Sandy Berger...
Wait, Hillary seems to be good at suddenly finding mising documents --let's ask her!
August 17th, 2005 at 10:44 am#3 Ditto. . . damn Clinton just can't leave the great Ronald alone....!
August 17th, 2005 at 10:48 amThis may not be that strange!
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050412-095319-4664r.htm
August 17th, 2005 at 10:50 amCC
you have to admit it is a bit wierd is it not?
but maybe Berger did take it.
August 17th, 2005 at 10:54 amOff-topic:
I just read a Salon.com article by thinkprogress "posters" Judd & Faiz. Well written, fellows!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/17/bush_plame/
August 17th, 2005 at 11:01 am4. The White House and the Justice Department refuse to name the lawyers involved.
Alberto Gonzales and John Roberts. DUH!
August 17th, 2005 at 11:03 amKraz, yeah a bit odd they are missing. Wouldn't be surprised if someone is hiding something...
August 17th, 2005 at 11:16 amEither Barney ,Spottey, Rex, or Millie must have eaten the file by mistake.
August 17th, 2005 at 11:17 amIs this a commission of a Federal crime?
August 17th, 2005 at 11:20 amNo one will admit to taking them - they pilloried Sandy Berger for taking copies - and then exaggerating that he stuffed them in his pants, etc. These criminals operate with impunity. D'ya think there's a coverup goin' on?
August 17th, 2005 at 11:31 amI still think opposing Roberts is a waste of capital. He will be confirmed regardless of missing documents. Remember the modus operandi is blur, stall, ram.
August 17th, 2005 at 11:50 amYou're right,Citizen.
August 17th, 2005 at 11:52 amI like your succinct phrasing - blur, stall, ram.
Roberts will be confirmed by 70-80 votes in September. Bush won the election last year and since he is still in office, he gets to nominate the candidate he wants on the court. The rest of you can just shut up or win the next election.
August 17th, 2005 at 11:55 amMonkey boy alert: RED
August 17th, 2005 at 11:59 amAll Hail the KING!!!
August 17th, 2005 at 11:59 amCitizen, seems like Red was agreeing with your post 14 in his post 16 -- Roberts will be confirmed so team ThinkProgress might be wise to focus on other issues.
That said, he might be a monkey boy for all I know... (whatever that is)
August 17th, 2005 at 12:02 pmHeck, I wanted to be the FIRST one to ask if the right wing wing nuts were going to make as much
FUSS
about this as when Sandy Berger borrowed files...
Fresh out of the box and they are spewing the names clinton.....
wingnuts only turn ONE WAY.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:05 pmI am unsure of Roberts comfirmation. Arlen Specter has been asking alot of questions, and some of the republicans are starting to distance themselves from bush. Most of the ones doing that are thinking of thier presidental nomination in 08.
CC
we are mostly objecting to the tone of Reds (isn't red for commies) post. especially the The rest of you can just shut up or win the next election.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:06 pmpart. its really close to how many of the Bush supporters post. A just shut up and take it approach.
The entire house of cards will fall shortly.
so to borrow a phrase.... what me worry?
August 17th, 2005 at 12:07 pmCC
August 17th, 2005 at 12:07 pmMonkey Boy is a term I coined for guerilla young connies who cut their teeth on "liberal posts" so they can then spew hardened arguments on campus. They seem almost human until they open their mouths with a shill scream and throw their shit everywhere.
Yeah, but make Roberts run the gauntlet first so the people can get another dose of what "the dark side" is all about.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:08 pmRed, CONcerned Commie, BS Red, smellyfish, seem to all be the same person....
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTIAN....
OR CHEENEY EITHER
August 17th, 2005 at 12:09 pmcc YOU SEEM TO BE OFF YOUR MEDS TODAY... what happend to the PRO BUSH, PRO REGUG agenda?
August 17th, 2005 at 12:10 pmdid a big ole draft make you get the sniffles?
August 17th, 2005 at 12:11 pmKJ
August 17th, 2005 at 12:13 pmCC is probably what he seems a concerned conservative (I think he is really a Libertarian).
Rabid Red, and Cornered Con are on your side KJ L
August 17th, 2005 at 12:13 pmMY BAD>>>
I have been seeing concerned commie post for far too long.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:19 pmKJ
August 17th, 2005 at 12:21 pmBut CC is no monkey boy, so should have voice in our rational discussion.
Citizen, thanks for the Monkey Boy explanation -- funny!
KJ, prescription ran out last night (insert Dean scream here). Seriously though, Citizen has a good read on me -- I'm more libertarian than conservative, but the lines are blurry. I dislike extremism on both sides. I'm a bit of an anomaly politically. For example I'm pro-choice and pro-war.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:25 pmLet me be more specific -- I'm pro war on terror, not all war.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:27 pmCC
August 17th, 2005 at 12:29 pmCome on man get with it! "The war against Islamic extremism" aka Iraqi screw up.
I am glad you can see the difference between defending ourselves, and eliminating the religious extremism that has infected islam, and the war in Iraq. Many of the Hardcore bush supporters don't see that difference. Of course many of them still beleive that the terrorists attacked us because of our freedom.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:31 pmKraz, I agree. Terrorists attacked us because we are the infidel and must be destroyed. Religious extremism plain and simple.
My rationale for supporting the GWOT is that we need the countries where terrorists are harbored to change their regimes/governments to ones that don't tolerate this extremism. I am hoping that the new constitution in Iraq (assuming it gets done!) is a step in the right direction.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:39 pmCC
August 17th, 2005 at 12:40 pmWhen are your going to admit that version has gone so terribly wrong?
White House spokesman Steve Schmidt said that notes taken by the Justice Department lawyer provided the archivists "with the road map to reconstruct the file."
"Hopefully that missing folder will turn up at the library," he said. "But what's most important is for people to understand the remarkable job that the staff at the Reagan Library did."
Indeed...
August 17th, 2005 at 12:41 pmCC says "Yeah, but make Roberts run the gauntlet first so the people can get another dose of what “the dark side†is all about."
I can take that two ways. 1. 'the people', being the neocons, will claim that the guantlet IS "the dark side". or 2. 'the people', non-neocons, will see that Roberts himself is "the dark side"
It's like an uncivil civil war of words.
I feel like screaming!
The neocons attack and attack and attack any one with a notion that Bush and company are wrong in their methods and choices. The people they attack can be no more than mothers of dead soldiers who have little hope of actually changing things (I still hope Sheehan can become the first Rosa Parks of this century). Yet when non-neocons want to know how a supreme court nominee thinks, the neocons throw thier hands up as if to say "why are you against him".
Well my little unthinking neocons, in one or two or ten years, that mother will still be without a son and that supreme court nominee will be making decisions with emense consequence to the American people FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. Can't you see the difference.
The people MUST know how Roberts thinks and they MUST know WHY things are being held back and WHO is behind holding it back. It appears to me to be so dishonest as to be treacherous.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:41 pmKraz, I agree. Terrorists attacked us because we are the infidel and must be destroyed. Religious extremism plain and simple.
Al Qaeda attacked us because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. OBL wanted them out.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:44 pmRoberts is the Anti-Christ. The right wing in America is, by definition, Anti-Christ.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:46 pmMy rationale for supporting the GWOT is that we need the countries where terrorists are harbored to change their regimes/governments to ones that don’t tolerate this extremism. I am hoping that the new constitution in Iraq (assuming it gets done!) is a step in the right direction.
As usual, as a psuedo-conservative, your rational is illogical and irrational.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:47 pmAethiest
August 17th, 2005 at 12:47 pmI totally agree with you, but we do not have the votes. We have lost the supreme court, period. We are entering into the "Constitutional Deadzone" for the next twenty years, this will not change. I feel we must regroup and focus on realistic goals untill we can appoint justices who will honor the Constitution as it was written.
Aethiest , You are right . Should have been more specific . "My dark side" =the Right Wing facists' Simply letting Roberts pass on through may be a mistake. He should be exposed for his radical views.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:47 pmCC
August 17th, 2005 at 12:50 pmNice name change, hope you really don't feel cornered?
The sarcasm is being lost here ,citizen. A response to concerned conservative. I'll drop it.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:52 pmCitizen, imo it is too early to tell whether the GWOT will be successful or not -- this is a long term strategy requiring a long term perspective.
Also, I don't believe we get enough news of the progress being made in Iraq -- all death and doom all the time on the major media outlets.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:52 pmI have to disagree CC nothing involving the middle east is that plain or simple. Much of the middle east still harbors hate for western culture because of the Crusades. the establishment of Isreal, the carving up of the middle east after world war 1 to support of some nasty dictators in order to have allies in the middle east. to say it is because of religious extremism is not totally true.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:53 pmI didn't change my name to Cornered Conservative. Cornered is someone else.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:54 pm"Much of the middle east still harbors hate for western culture because of the Crusades"
Well, CC did say it will take a long term strategy.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:20 pmCC, 60 terrorist attacks every day in Iraq, according to our military. Of those 60, how many should the MSM report?
And military deaths occur every day. Should the MSM have a moritorium on reporting them?
Perhaps you should go to Iraq with a camera so you can film happy young students enjoying their new schools.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:20 pmWhat's That Behind Your Back, Judge Roberts?
Now this is odd: it seems that all the papers regarding Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' affirmative action work in the 1980s has mysteriously disappeared from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library after they were reviewed from White House lawyers...
August 17th, 2005 at 1:25 pmCitizen80203,
You seem awfully concerned whenever anyone with an opinion different from your own shows up here. Do you feel threatened? Are you insecure? You must have some doubts in what you believe. Also, in #42, the justices appointed by democratic administrations do not interpret the constitution as it was written, they legislate from the bench. Where in the constitution is it written that municipalities can sieze property for the greater good? (Just one example)
August 17th, 2005 at 1:29 pmI like what Reid said yesterday. We haven't even started the hearings yet so we don't know what the evidence is.
I think Roberts is too conservative for my tastes, but whether or not it will rise to the filibuster level, we'll just have to wait and see.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:30 pmWhen you have to quote the "Moonie Times" to make a point, you have truly jumped the shark, and quite possibly lost touch with reality. Put down the Kool-Aid.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:38 pmI can't think of one Bush appointee that has been exeplary, Roberts won't be either. I think its interesting that Renquist is staying on. If he is such a conservative you'd think he'd leave so that the neocon can do further damage. Perhaps he's trying to protect the court's integrity while he can.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:42 pmRed,
the majority of supreme court justices have been appointed by republican presidents. You can point at ginsburg all you want, but she is simply one justice of nine. I could make an argument that it is conservative judges who legislate from the bench not liberal ones.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:42 pmThe machine is spinning again, and scull and bonesmen are editing the things that aren't favorable to roberts.
I guess that 12 hour shred-fest at the WH wasn't enough of a head start.
roberts is against abortion, for the killing of abortion doctors, against people of color, involved with a KKK spin off group that cultivates hatred and intolerance, and, get ready to return to the early 20th century and before...
against equal pay for men and women.
Classic shrub material.
I just wonder how he will be appointed if he isn't confirmed LEGALLY?
August 17th, 2005 at 1:43 pmOnce again, paranoia strikes deep. Once again, there is no there there.
Read the Boston Globe article. It does not quote any "disparaging remarks" by Mr. Roberts. It only refers to a 1982 memo in which Mr. Roberts urged Attorney General Smith to praise her grant program's goals, despite misgivings about evidence of financial mismanagement of the program:
"On matters of civil rights and affirmative action, there are several memos in which Roberts privately denounced a liberal program or position, but urged his bosses to try to avoid confronting the issue. In September 1982, for example, he wrote a memo preparing Smith for a meeting with Coretta Scott King, who wanted Smith to renew a $250,000 grant for the Martin Luther King Jr. Center.
"In reality, Roberts wrote, 'the only reason for the grant was the political ties' between Mrs. King and the former administrator of the grant program, and the money had been squandered by poor management. But in Smith's meeting with King, Roberts advised, the attorney general should praise the program's goals, express 'pleasure' that the federal government could be of assistance, but explain that no further funds were available."
This is the kind of politically correct double-talk that has been a requirement of political life in America for far too long. At the time of this memo, there were certain icons of the civil rights movement who were immune from criticism, no matter how justified, and at the top of that list was Coretta Scott King. Mr. Roberts was merely advising the Attorney General to use the very PC double-talk that the left insisted on hearing. If anyone should be upset about this, it should be conservatives.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:52 pmROBERTS IS A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING. Don't believe everything you read about how GREAT AND POWERFUL HE IS.
If you think he is OK, that is your opinion.
But he is a sheet wearing coward. Another bible thumping bigot.
August 17th, 2005 at 2:00 pmI just wonder how he will be appointed if he isn’t confirmed LEGALLY?
August 17th, 2005 at 2:09 pmBSR - It would seem that you are ignoring the positions that Roberts has advocated throughout his government service to date. & this is from the documents released.
We wonder what is in the other docs.
However in the meantime, stop telling us we aren't allowed to think for ourselves and you know better.
We all have equally valid & important opinions.
August 17th, 2005 at 2:10 pmSo, BSR, if you oppose political double-talk, you certainly don't want Roberts in the SC, right?
August 17th, 2005 at 2:23 pm"[W]e need the countries where terrorists are harbored to change their regimes/governments to ones that don’t tolerate this extremism."
If you had included, "bomb their cities, and convert them to Christianity," I would have thought you were Man Coulter. Hell, I wish we could change regimes in this country, but it is not within my rights to use violence to achieve that end. Simple bromides about democracry and extremism are just hypocritical BS when our foreign policy allies with terrorist supporting regimes (Saudi Arabia, anyone? Pakistan?). All this begs the question: what war on terror?
August 17th, 2005 at 2:28 pmInteresting responses, and, unfortunately, all too typical. Lovell calls names; kindness demands "stop telling us we aren't allowed to think for ourselves," when I have done nothing of the kind. To the contrary, I have suggested just the opposite: By all means read the Globe article itself, and form your own opinions, instead of taking Judd's or my word for it.
But since this thread started with Judd's reference to that article, let's at least consider whether his charcterization of Mr. Roberts' comments is accurate. I have found that Judd and Mipe have a disturbing tendency to mischaracterize the contents of articles as op-ed columns (as they did yesterday with Bob Dole's op-ed in favor of the Lugar-Pence federal shield law bill). That makes it important to examine the accuracy of what they say.
In this case, Judd has completely mischaracterized the content of the Globe article, and has excised the reference to the 1982 memo from its context. I would think that has a bearing on the credibility of Judd's theory that someone is trying to hide documents relating to Mr. Roberts' views on affirmative action.
I suggest that on a site calling itself "Think Progress" we should have enough intellectual honesty to discuss these things on their merits, rather than calling names and changing the subject. Any takers?
August 17th, 2005 at 2:28 pm"the very PC double-talk that the left insisted on hearing"
That doesn't sound like you believe we think for ourselves, does it?
In reality, it is the right's condescension that leads to such double-talk. Roberts was advocating "faking it" when it comes to support of civil rights. In other words, votes are more important than honest debate. That's my take on the general Republican strategy these days.
August 17th, 2005 at 2:33 pmComment by Blue State Red — August 17, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
Kill a connie for Christ. Better dead than red.
Make Conservatism History.
GOP RIP
2006
August 17th, 2005 at 3:00 pmRoberts will be confirmed
Keep your crystal ball. We got Brass Balls.
August 17th, 2005 at 3:03 pmI suggest that on a site calling itself “Think Progress†we should have enough intellectual honesty to discuss these things on their merits, rather than calling names and changing the subject. Any takers?
Haha! There is nothing to discuss. This is war. Are you surrendering? If you are it's unconditional, or go take a flying you know what. Your side had the opportunity for compromise. Your side thought you had a "mandate" and "political capital". Your side blew it, and now you want to "talk"? Talk to yourself until you are BLUE in the face. Then we might be entertained.
August 17th, 2005 at 3:08 pmLet's try to stick to the subject of the original post. I suppose we could debate the origins of political correctness, but how debatable is my contextual point that, by 1982, it was politically correct for GOP politicians to avoid any appearance of criticism of certain civil rights leaders, especially including Mrs. King; and that in her case such political correctness was an unwritten rule of political discourse imposed by the left, rather than the right?
According to the Globe article, young Mr. Roberts clearly recognized this fact of political life, and he so advised the older - and perhaps less PC astute - Attorney General Smith. Whatever virtues or vices that may reveal about him, Mr. Roberts certainly cannot fairly be said to have made "disparaging remarks" about Mrs. King, which was Judd's original charge.
August 17th, 2005 at 3:19 pmBSR is correct that the globe article does not indicate in anyway that roberts made disparaging remarks about mrs. King.
however he ignores the larger context of missing documents that have to be rebuilt from laywers notes.
something is fishy in DS
August 17th, 2005 at 3:24 pmPoint 1: Roberts did not make disparaging remarks about Coretta Scott King. Judd, do you expect people not to read the articles you link to? From now on, readers should be sure to read all of your references before believing your claims.
Point 2: I hope Roberts is against affirmative action. Otherwise, he would be supporting racism.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." -MLK Jr.
August 17th, 2005 at 3:26 pmif we can end racism we can end affirmative action tony its that simple.
August 17th, 2005 at 3:30 pmRoberts is not acceptable. Unless you don't value the "judicially activist" construction of a right to privacy. Case closed. What he thought, if he does think, of Corretta Scott King is irrelevant. But smear the little GOP bastard anyway you can. Death by a thousand cuts.
August 17th, 2005 at 3:39 pm"smear the little GOP bastard anyway you can."
My what big nasty insults you have! I'll bet you have lots of trophies for being a master debater.
There has to be a better way than this to discuss our disagreements.
August 17th, 2005 at 4:06 pmThat would be the Karl Rove Trophy?
August 17th, 2005 at 4:18 pmBSR - we aren't really listening to you because you are trying to sell us that bushco is completely forthright and up front.
We aren't listening to you because we have found in EVERY situation that bushco speaks with forked tongue. He says something but does and means another. That is the basis for our current mindsets. It isn't that we are tinfoil hat wearers, we are cognicent of our recent experience with the regime.
Stop giving us crap about it. Give your points and go on.
August 17th, 2005 at 4:26 pmLet me give specific examples.
The Terry Schavio case. In every discussion reguarding bushco's actions and dumbya's pronouncement, they were done with the integrity of something out of Animal Farm.
dumbya continually rails against the government forcing the people to abide by governments will (against what the people want). He has repeatedly stated that he wants judges that aren't "activist". Every judge who reviewed the Schavio case (most of whom were republicans) said it wasn't anyone but the husband and wife's decision & the government should butt out. bushco called every one of those judges "activist" purely because he didn't do what they wanted. ie - Animal Farm.
We want judges that act as the judges in the Schavio case did and rule like they ruled. Dumbya and bushco do not. They just want to claim to want strict constitutionalists while actually being "activist" (again, Animal Farm).
We question which kind of category Roberts fits under.
August 17th, 2005 at 4:39 pmSince you mentioned it, the Schiavo case provides an interesting contrast with other matters of life and death. For example, under Florida law, an husband's tesitimony about a remembered oral conversation, many years earlier, is a sufficient basis for giving the husband power to prevent his wife from receiving life-sustaining nourishment. By contrast, under Roe v. Wade, there is no amount of evidence sufficient to give a husband the power to prevent the abortion of his own child.
What a country!
August 17th, 2005 at 7:36 pmIt is not sufficient basis in general, BS, and was not in that case in particular. So what you said is completely wrong. Just call yourself an ideologue and stop trying to misrepresent facts, because the facts don't fit your opinions.
August 17th, 2005 at 8:15 pmFrom crooksandliars.com
Bill O'Reilly Poll on Cindy
Do you respect what Cindy Sheehan is doing?
Bill has been pounding on her for days now. Here's his site and you actually don't have to pay to vote in the poll.
August 17th, 2005 at 9:21 pmhttp://billoreilly.com/
dumbya recommending anyone for anything is not a good idea.
It is like Hitler suggesting who should be in charge of checks and balances of his germany.
or asking the fox who he wants to guard the hen house.
Not wise. He hasn't promoted anyone ANYONE without a QUESTIONABLE PAST. just favors for favors... here's your promotion sonny.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:12 amHow will dumbya appoint roberts if he is not confirmed?
(serious question)
August 18th, 2005 at 1:14 am[...] Whatever happened to the Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ file on affirmative action, it can be definitively stated that this is all President Bush’s fault. Sound a little extreme? Not really. [...]
August 24th, 2005 at 6:39 am[...] First the National Archives “lost” John Roberts’s affirmative action file after it was reviewed by two administration lawyers. Now the National Archives says it “mislabeled” a bunch of other files related to Roberts. The AP reports: The National Archives announced on Tuesday that the Top of Form Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., had discovered a “large volume” of unreviewed and unreleased Roberts documents that were filed under a code instead of under Roberts’ name. Additional employees from the Archives have been sent to the Reagan library to review the documents to determine what or how much can be released, officials said. [...]
August 31st, 2005 at 10:55 amcollege basketball betting
You can also take a look at the pages in the field of Jackpot nevada show information
October 12th, 2005 at 12:14 amall you need to sex toys and you need to adult dvd from the adult dvds you can know all from this
November 9th, 2005 at 4:19 pmsexy secretary...
gimmemoney 541253 Latest sexy secretary news...
January 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pm