Youthful Idealism?
A friend dropped by my house yesterday to issue a personal apology. She had counseled me that the progressive groups were doomed if they tried to oppose Roberts and that I personally should stay away from any emerging fight. But having read some of the coverage of John Roberts' work at the White House counsel's office, she came over to say I had been right all along. She now agreed: he's the real deal arch-conservative. He is more than just a lawyer who argues cases on behalf of clients, a politics-free instrumentality of those with an ideology, as Roberts has typically been depicted in this rush to a favorable judgment.
Concededly, I cringe at the mere thought of reading all my own papers, much less having the public read them. But I think I was more idealistic when I was in my 20s than I am today, midway through my 40s. Most people are. Fresh out of college and law school, we are most inclined to dream about and work towards our ideal society.
So what can we tell about John Roberts' ideal society, at least when he was younger? He seems to have wished that affirmative action would just go away, that we would stop "recruiting [] inadequately prepared candidates" and that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights would just be honest and give that hard-nosed assessment to the public. Title IX: let it go if a District Judge fails to apply its requirements to institutions as a whole, rather than particular programs receiving federal funds. Tough luck, gals; that was a squishy Carter Administration idea anyway. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center: a bad investment on the part of the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service. Jurisdiction-stripping bills: bring 'em on, especially if they stop those federal courts from using controversial tools like busing to redress constitutional violations.
On jurisdiction-stripping, Roberts was to the right of Ted Olson. He also hewed right of William Bradford Reynolds, in arguing against intervention in a sex discrimination case, and he was on board with the usual conservative stance that federal habeas corpus was abused and should be limited. No reported mention of any program to forestall constitutional defects in state court trials themselves.
The young Roberts chastised the Department of Justice for not intervening on behalf of Texas when it sought to deny public education to the kids of illegal immigrants. He bemoaned the result in Plyler v. Doe, a holding in accord with the religious and secular sense that the sins of the father should not be visited upon the next generation and the more practical concern that we need to educate all kids, whether or not their parents jumped a line.
There are days when I'm so busy with the logistics of life that I hardly feel I have any politics whatsoever. Then I read about the strenuous legal and policy efforts John Roberts undertook that worked against the interests of African-Americans, women, immigrant children, and prisoners, typically in the name of some other principle like "judicial restraint" and I know I still have a political sensibility, one at odds with the youthful Roberts.
Comments (8)
As interesting as these papers are, they mean absolutely nothing as far as the confirmation process goes.
In the first place, what someone writes when they are in their 20s may or may not reflect their philosphy when they are in their 50s. People evolve and their views change.
Second, what Roberts advocated as a WH counsel is different from how he will necessarily rule as a justice. Much more important, as everyone keeps saying, is what is his judicial philosophy. Does he lean towards staying with precedent etc.? We know he is a political conservative. But we don't know what kind of judicial conservative he is. And my guess is that even if he has a good idea what his judicial philosophy is, he'll bob and weave during the confirmation hearings to avoid telling us.
The net result is that there is probably nothing so egregious in his past to cause a scandal. And the modern M.O. for confirmations is to try to remain enigmatic and hard to pin down. So the overwhelming possibility is that he will get confirmed, and we just won't know how he will rule.
As the current New Yorker says, "The Roberts nomination will be a bitter pill for liberals, but one they have known they will have to swallow since November 2004."
Focus on winning elections. Not on fighting an unwinnable fight on Roberts.
July 28, 2005 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the thing about youthful idealism, though, is that when you are young, you take more of a "theoretical" approach to problems. I'm not defending Roberts, but I would say his views in this instance seem to represent a conservative "idealism," and he has possibly evolved in a more pragmatic way the way a lot of liberals do from a different direction. But I'm not going to go to the mat defending that thought, either.
July 28, 2005 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, we all mellow as we age, but isn't that adding wieght to the idea that we need to see his writting from his time as ASG? We will only be able to see his thinking if we can see the full arch of his thought from young fire-brand to reasoned adult. Without that how can we be conifdent that he is not another Grover Norquist, whoes ideas have not mellowed but indeed become more ideological as time goes on?
July 28, 2005 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked this post and agreed with it: Reading of Roberts's work at the Justice Dept. causes everything to fall into place. OF COURSE, you think, THIS is why social conservatives--Robert George, Hadley Arkes--have been quietly counseling the major right wing groups not to believe the press accounts that say this guy is non-ideological.
I notice Cavendish's author bio only speaks of things she USED to do (interim president Naral, etc.) What does she do now?
July 28, 2005 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, but there is a difference between WH counsel, which looks at policy, and the SG office, which is focused on advocacy. He can always use the "I was representing my client" dodge and it won't tell us anything definitive.
But even if he has remained as conservative as before, what is that going to tell us? Opposing him is not a fight the Democrats can win, barring some bombshell revelation. And if there's one thing we've also learned about Roberts, it's that he's a very careful guy, so the chances of some jawdropping revelation is pretty small.
July 28, 2005 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing about jurists is that they can always stay comfortably ensconced in the theoretical world, where their views are not subject to change by outside facts or realities. In fact, they are supposed to do just that. Therefore, I see no reason other than wishful thinking to imagine that Roberts' views have become more "pragmatic" (i.e., like ours) as he's gotten older.
The kinds of jobs Roberts has held point to a man with a right-wing belief system.If, for example, Roberts personally believes that affirmative action should be abolished, and he spent his youth constructing legal arguments to get rid of affirmative action, then it's safe to assume that he still supports those arguments because they allow him to exercise his underlying beliefs without being untrue to his principles as a jurist. Antonin Scalia operates the exact same way, and we know that Bush wants to appoint a justice who's just like him. Roberts will probably turn out to be Scalia minus the big mouth.
July 28, 2005 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Robert's youthful idealism is imporant to understand not because its great ammo to use against him in the hearings but rather more of what we can come to expect when he becomes a supreme court justice. Now I know that views can change over time, but this is not an appointment in which he has to be careful what he does. I think that power of being a supreme court justice might just be enough to spark some sort of idealism that has had to lay dormant in Roberts. Unfortunately i don't think there is much we can do about it. Also, I'm worried that his wife will have a big affluence on him.
July 28, 2005 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks very much for your post.
Since there isn't a trackback feature on the blog, I'll just mention that it inspired me to write my own thoughts on the subject, which you can find here.
July 29, 2005 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink