This is pretty ridiculous
Several prominent figures in the African American community today strongly rebuked Mychal Massie and other right-wing African Americans for comparing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, who has a record of opposition to civil rights, to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
In a press release from the right-wing front group Project 21 announcing an event scheduled for this morning, Massie said Roberts “represents the beliefs of great Americans such as James Madison and Martin Luther King, Jr.
But Roberts’ record clearly shows he tried to limit voting rights protections, permit federal funding of discrimination, and strip the Supreme Court of its ability to protect civil rights.
“I knew Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a friend of mine. John Roberts is no Martin Luther King, Jr.,” said George Mason University Professor and civil rights leader Roger Wilkins. “As a matter of fact, John Roberts is far closer to Brad Reynolds, whose tenure at the Justice Department was devoted to tearing down everything that King and the civil rights movement had achieved in the 1960 s.”
Must agree with you here. This is clearly hyperbolic and ridiculous:
“But Roberts record clearly shows he tried to limit voting rights protections, permit federal funding of discrimination, and strip the Supreme Court of its ability to protect civil rights.”
I bet you his wife has bought sheets in the last year, too!!!!
Dugger
“
Anybody to the right of Maxine Waters is too extreme for that super bad hair piece wearing wacko Ralph Neas.
BTW. I love this. You guys have a true moderate and you are rolling out the big ugly smear machine. If W puts up a true conservative next time around, your smear campaign is going to sound EXACTLY THE SAME. It can’t be any worse. You’ve blown it.
Dugger
How do you get any more ‘right’ than someone who is against civil rights, abortion, and the environment?
hey outer,
Great comeback. I would argue back but I know you’ll hit me with the killer “Roberts is a DOO DOO head.”
Dugger
I’m just asking.
Dugger claims Roberts is a “true moderate.”
Let’s see.
Roberts supported an anti-choice group–one that has a history of using violence against clinics. Is that moderate?
We know from Roberts’ writings he isn’t a big fan of paying women comparable salaries for comparable work. Doesn’t sound moderate.
Roberts is on record as being opposed to church-state separation. Again, not a moderate stance.
They want to SAY hes moderate so he can get confirmed. He isn’t really a moderate.
Does anybody have any credible information about Roberts that will let me know about his history? From what I have read, there is nothing glaring thus far that has been found out about him.
Tommy “Jadegold” Flanagan once again shows his amazing skill of lying.
Roberts supported an anti-choice group one that has a history of using violence against clinics. Is that moderate?
He didn’t “support an anti-choice group.” He argued a position for the government that an anti-discrimination law couldn’t be used against abortion blockaders because they weren’t discriminating against women as men were also being blocked. Roberts has completely repudiated those who commit violence against abortion clinics.
We know from Roberts writings he isn t a big fan of paying women comparable salaries for comparable work. Doesn t sound moderate.
Another lie. Roberts criticized a judges ruling that a woman who works at a laundry should make the same amount of money as a man who is a truck driver. It is not his personal opinion. In addition, those who believe judges and the government should be setting salaries are the ones who are not moderate.
Roberts is on record as being opposed to church-state separation. Again, not a moderate stance.
Another lie. He filed two amicus briefs dealing with religious freedom issues when he was Deputy Solicitor General. In the Lee v. Weisman brief, the government argued public high schools should be allowed to hold religious ceremonies as part of graduation ceremonies. The Supreme Court rejected this position. In Mergens v. Westside Community School District, the government argued that public schools could not bar religious groups from meeting on school grounds because this would violate the Equal Access Act. The Supreme Court sided with the government’s position.
You really are shameless.
He didn t support an anti-choice group.
Operation Rescue isn’t an anti-choice group? Perhaps in Carusoville but not in reality. And the fact is Operation Rescue had and has been implicated (and convicted) in clinic bombings and violence.
Jay makes this so easy.
Roberts criticized a judges ruling that a woman who works at a laundry should make the same amount of money as a man who is a truck driver.
Let us revisit Robert’s own words. Robert refers to a “purported gender gap.” He is on record as saying “whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good.”
In point of fact, even rightwingnut, Phyllis Schlafly said of Roberts: “It kind of sounds like a smart alecky comment by a young bachelor and hadn’t seen a whole lot of life at that point.”
WRT equal pay for men and women, Roberts called such a notion “pernicious” and “anti-capitalist.”
The Supreme Court rejected this position.
Of course they did–Roberts argued that Xtian groups should be given public access to public facilities and institutions. I d have no idea what Jay C’s beef is here; Roberts argued against church-state separation and the USSC shot it down.
Operation Rescue isn t an anti-choice group? Perhaps in Carusoville but not in reality. And the fact is Operation Rescue had and has been implicated (and convicted) in clinic bombings and violence.
Jackass. Your contention is that Roberts supports Operation Rescue. That is not true. The fact that Roberts filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the government that a law aimed at the Ku Klux Klan could not be used against abortion clinic protestors does not equate to him “supporting” groups like Operation Rescue. It’s a bogus claim. IE, it’s a lie and you’re a liar. Simple as that.
Let us revisit Robert s own words. Robert refers to a purported gender gap. He is on record as saying whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good.
So? This has nothing to do with your accusation that Roberts in your words “…isn t a big fan of paying women comparable salaries for comparable work.
Once again, you move off track to try and distract from your own words.
WRT equal pay for men and women, Roberts called such a notion pernicious and anti-capitalist.
Lying again. He did not refer to the “notion” as “pernicious” and “anti-capitalist”, he referred to the government theory of government forcing firms to pay women equally to men for jobs of ‘comparable worth’ which is an extremely vague term.
Of course they did Roberts argued that Xtian groups should be given public access to public facilities and institutions. I d have no idea what Jay C s beef is here; Roberts argued against church-state separation and the USSC shot it down.
The beef is that your claiming he’s opposed to church-state separation. It’s a dubious accusation. The SC agreed with Roberts in Mergens v. Westside Community School District. I could easily label anybody who argued in opposition to Roberts as a person who “opposes religious freedom.” You threw a blanket over Roberts based upon his arguments in two court cases. It’s dishonest.
If you could earn money for dishonest, we’d see you in Forbes every year.
Poor Jay. He cannot help but lie in support of his masters.
In the Operation Rescue instance, Roberts did file an amicus brief on behalf of the Govt. Somehow, in Jay’s gin-soaked mind, this means Roberts really didn’t mean it or that somehow it doesn’t count.
The point Jay hopes we’ll ignore or won’t notice is the fact Roberts didn’t file amicus briefs in other cases, notably against Greenpeace and other liberal groups, where the same law was being contested. The only group Roberts was interested in was a group with undeniable links to violence and the anti-choice cause.
he referred to the government theory of government forcing firms to pay women equally to men for jobs of comparable worth
Caruso attempts to draw a distinction where there is none. Bottomline is that Roberts doesn’t believe in equal pay for equal work.
It’s pretty bad when Phyllis Schlafly—a virulent anti-feminist and all-purpose rightwingnut–thinks your views on women are extreme.
The beef is that your claiming he s opposed to church-state separation.
Your beef really isn’t with me. Roberts is on record as opposing church-state separation in every instance. You seem to believe its wrong to point out this fact.
In the Operation Rescue instance, Roberts did file an amicus brief on behalf of the Govt. Somehow, in Jay s gin-soaked mind, this means Roberts really didn t mean it or that somehow it doesn t count.
No pinhead, what it means is that you’re being dishonest when you say Roberts, …”supported an anti-choice group one that has a history of using violence against clinics.”
The point Jay hopes we ll ignore or won t notice is the fact Roberts didn t file amicus briefs in other cases, notably against Greenpeace and other liberal groups, where the same law was being contested.
First of all, your knowledge of the facts is poor. Roberts did not file a friend of the court brief in the matter. The United States government did. Roberts, acting in his capacity as Deputy Solicitor General had his name on the paperwork as he was acting on behalf of his client. The anti-abortion groups were not his client. They had their own representation. So hence, once again, your contention that Roberts “supports” groups like Operation Rescue, especially in light of his personal words which condemn organizations that use violence or even the threat of violence, is a lie.
Caruso attempts to draw a distinction where there is none.
Of course there is. A person’s criticism a law, or judicial decision does not automatically fall in line with their personal views. You tried to make it appear as though Robert’s words his personal views when they were not.
Bottomline is that Roberts doesn t believe in equal pay for equal work.
Again, this is a lie. You have no idea what Robert’s views are equal pay. You’re using his words criticisizing a government theory has his own person views regarding the issue. That’s dishonest.
Your beef really isn t with me.
Sure it is because you’re dishonest.
Roberts is on record as opposing church-state separation in every instance. You seem to believe its wrong to point out this fact.
That’s because it is not a fact and your own words show that to be true. Why? Because in your view, since the USSC disagreed with Roberts in one case, that puts him on record as being opposed to church-state separation. But in the other case I cited, the USSC agreed with Roberts. That puts him in the camp of supporting religious freedom and anybody who disagrees is “being on record as opposing religious freedom.” Using Jadegold logic.
Again, that s a true statement. He wrote an amicus brief supporting Operation Rescue.
No, he wrote an amicus brief supporting the same position OR had on whether or not a law that was written to fight the KKK could apply to abortion protestors. It is not the same thing as “supporting Opertation Rescue.”
It’s as dishonest as me saying you and Oliver support David Duke and Pat Buchanan because you’re all opposed to the war in Iraq.
In Roberts case, we know what his personal views were. You don t write briefs about housewives becoming lawyers being a bad thing. That s his personal view.
And that has nothing to do with his personal views on equal pay for equal work. Another example where you bring up irrelevant points to ‘prove’ your original accusation.
Yup, that s what every wingnut who claims the 10 Commandments has to be plastered in every public building says.
Don’t cherrypick my comments and use them out of context. You made the claim that since the USSC ruled in opposition to Roberts contention in one case that it makes him guilty of “not supporting church-state separation.” That logic dictates that in the case where the USSC affirmed Roberts position, it merely makes him a supporter of religious freedom. That’s using your own pretzel logic.
& supported an anti-choice group one that has a history of using violence against clinics.
Again, that’s a true statement. He wrote an amicus brief supporting Operation Rescue. OR has had a long history of violence against clinic–not just by its rank and file but by its leaders.
A person s criticism a law, or judicial decision does not automatically fall in line with their personal views.
In Roberts’ case, we know what his personal views were. You don’t write briefs about housewives becoming lawyers being a bad thing. That’s his personal view.
That puts him in the camp of supporting religious freedom
Yup, that’s what every wingnut who claims the 10 Commandments has to be plastered in every public building says.
Again, Jay, Roberts had every opportunity to challenge the law in other cases. He didn’t. It was only when OR’s bacon was in the fire that he acted.
You honestly must be the only person in this country who doesn’t realize Roberts is an anti-choice zealot. Tell you what–go to OR’s website. See what they’re saying about Roberts. They can’t come up with enough flattering adjectives to praise him.
WRT equal pay/equal job issue–we know his personal views from his writings. Calling equal pay/equal job “anti-capitalist” isn’t a legal argument–it’s personal opinion.
WRT church-state separation, Roberts has had occasion to be involved in two cases. In both cases he opted to support the view there was no such thing. Now, you’re demanding we ignore Robert’s past or hope that Roberts has somehow changed.
Again, Jay, Roberts had every opportunity to challenge the law in other cases. He didn t. It was only when OR s bacon was in the fire that he acted.
What other opportunities? Name them. The law wasn’t ‘challenged’ by the administration. The abortion clinics that brought this civil suit attempted to use the law in question. Roberts went out of his way to say that the protestors were guilty of trespassing, which is a violation of state law. All he did was argue that this federal anti-discrimination law could not be applicable to abortion protestors since it was men and women who were being protested against and not just women.
You honestly must be the only person in this country who doesn t realize Roberts is an anti-choice zealot.
This has nothing to do with Roberts views on abortion. You claimed he “supported an anti-choice group one that has a history of using violence against clinics.” That just is not true.
Tell you what go to OR s website. See what they re saying about Roberts. They can t come up with enough flattering adjectives to praise him.
Who gives a shit? David Duke is lavishing praise upon Cindy Sheehan. Does that make her a supporter of him? OR’s support of Roberts confirmation does not equate to Roberts support of them. Roberts called those who used violence against abortion clinics “criminals” and urged Ronald Reagan to turn down their requests for pardons, which he did.
Calling equal pay/equal job anti-capitalist isn t a legal argument it s personal opinion.
You’re wrong. In the first place, his comment had to do with equal pay/equal value, not equal pay/equal job. IE, it was about ‘comparable worth.’ I already discussed this. The government could determine through whatever system it devises, that a grocery store cashier has the same ‘comparable worth’ as that of a grocery store assistant manager, and most cashiers are women and most assistant managers are men, then cashiers should earn the same as assistant managers. Secondly, Roberts was criticizing the goverment’s role in making these determinations, saying it was something that should be left to the free market.
If you slide enough cash under the table some Negroes would support a federal appointment for David Duke with a straight face. The fact that project 21, which is nothing more than an odd assortment of handkerchief head negroes willing to buck dance to Massa’ Bush’s tune is of absolutely no consequence because they represent nobody but themselves. It is irrelevant what they proclaim because Black Americans when properly educated about Judge Roberts’ Anti-Affirmative Action and Anti-Voting rights record will uniformly reject him.