The first thing I've learned about proto-Justice Roberts that I think hurts his candidacy — and makes me think he really is outside the mainstream: back when he was a young hot-shot GOP politically appointed government lawyer, Roberts wrote against anti-discrimination law aimed at curbing sex discrimination. But he didn't just oppose these laws on libertarian grounds (which I would consider wrong, but principled) but also asked whether “encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good.” Which is casual sexist pig talk.
Had Roberts written this in the 50s, we could dismiss it as the times. But Roberts wrote this yesterday, in the Reagan administration.
And this is the guy who is slated to replace the first female Justice?
No way this is fatal on its own, more a big scratch than a deep wound (and Sen. Santorum agrees, anyway), but it's the first thing to draw blood.
Source: Guardian via TalkLeft: Roberts to Women: Stay in the Kitchen.
Well, the Reagan Administration is not quite “yesterday,” and he did eventually marry a lawyer.
Still, some of his earlier writings has some kernels that are explosive. Even an AP story spoke of them highlighting his support of the conservative principles of his employees — you know, he is not just an advocate, he believes in this stuff. Like “no s—” but it’s good to get it out there.
You’re the unusual lawyer, in that apparently you can’t recognize a lawyer joke. There are books of them–perhaps one of your students would be kind enough to share one with you. Not that you’d understand it, but perhaps you’d have a better sense of the social context. (You’re lack of a sense of humor is amazingly deep–could it be Asperger’s? I’m not saying it’s a good joke, but it’s so obvious that it was meant as a joke (and as a joke about the relative worth of lawyers), that someone’s failing to recognize that it was a joke surely is a sign of a disorder of some sort. How do you function in your faculty meetings?)