John Roberts - Anti Gay sentiment unearthed today

[Squirt]

Last week, researchers found several memos from the summer and fall of 1984 in which future Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, working as a Reagan White House lawyer, argued against sending presidential thank-you notes to Michael Jackson for his charitable works. But it turns out this was just the beginning of what appears to be the young lawyer's concerns about the star. Three new memos uncovered by Post reporters show Roberts described Jackson as "androgynous," "mono-gloved" and a balladeer of illegitimacy.

Roberts wrote: "If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose 'Michael,' as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson's androgynous life style, a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President." FULL STORY ( this is only a small snippet )

-------------------

I find this quote particularly ironic "Cognoscenti will recognize the allusion to a character in one of Mr. Jackson's popular ballads, a young lass who claims -- falsely, according to the oft-repeated refrain of the singer -- that the singer is the father of her illegitimate child. This may be someone's idea of presidential humor, but it certainly is not mine."

Fast forward to present day and John Roberts is the father of two illegitimate children.. ironic isn't it? Judgmental holier then thow assholes always get theirs in the end. You'd think religious wanna be elitists would get it after a while that nobody is perfect, life is unpredictable, and we are all Gods legitimate children. :angel:

[desslock]

Let's just fish out whatever we want to see in a person, and brand them according to our own rigid world view. If it is good enough for Pat Robertson, then why should it not be good enough for you or me.

You know - John Roberts did pro bono work for the landmark Supreme Court gay rights case Roemer v Evans, and he still will get completely trashed BY THE PEOPLE who this specifically helped. ( see here ) Why should any Republican even attempt to be helpful to gays if at the end of the day they will get their arms happily crushed into the car door of this myopic opinion?

I mean really --- why should they even bother anymore. They aren't "supposed" to act like that according to our prejudice. So they should just stop.

Particularly since such help simultaneously draws the fire breathing, unyielding wrath of the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, etc. (see that article from above) Creating a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation for people who try to help advance gay rights --- as in working to repeal of Colorado's anti gay law from Roemer v Evans --- clearly illustrates that the gay rights movement is not about advancing gay rights, but really just salting and enriching political power into the hands of one party.

Steve

[BDBionic]

Well I have to say as someone whose family is in the civil service and as someone who worked in it myself for awhile (and really this is true not just for government work but in the private sector as well) when you're performing your duties as an employee or official, it's not your job to push some personal agenda. It's your job to formulate or implement policy.

What I see in those statements by Roberts is a man working on behalf of a conservative president, making advisements as to what he - in his capacity as an administration lawyer - saw as being in the best interests of that administration. His job as a lawyer is to represent his client, who was in this situation the Reagan Admin. And so that's the perspective from which I personally see those comments as having come.

So I don't necessarily see any hypocrisy or even prejudice there. I see him thinking about the best interests of the people he represents and performing the duties of the position he had.

[basschick]

what i see at best is a lawyer - not a judge. except for a brief period, mr roberts has been a lawyer. he works for cases he doesn't agree with for pay, and he does a good job.

if the u.s. were looking for a lawyer, that would be a good thing. as a judge, and such an important one, i wouldn't want ANYONE given a life term in this job who had only a couple years experience.

[Squirt]

From the very link you quoted as supporting your stance in favor of Roberts:

"The homosexual activists who were represented were not his clients and he did not sign any briefs or argue any cases for them. While I wish he had declined, I can understand how his minimal involvement in this case happened. Everything I have seen so far about Judge Roberts’ judicial philosophy leads me to believe that as a judge, he would have sided against the homosexual activists in that case."

In the Gay rights case Roberts dealt only with the form and structure of the case. He DID NOT sign any briefs or argue the case. Pro bono work for the law firm that employed him was part of the job. We don't know if Roberts had a choice or what the circumstances might have been which lead him to do that work as Roberts hasn't spoken about it. We don't know what his personal, or professional, opinion was, because he didn't give it.

But when Roberts has given his personal, and professional, opinion he says things like "Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson's androgynous life style" and "Cognoscenti will recognize the allusion to a character in one of Mr. Jackson's popular ballads, a young lass who claims -- falsely, according to the oft-repeated refrain of the singer -- that the singer is the father of her illegitimate child. This may be someone's idea of presidential humor, but it certainly is not mine."

I ponder why Roberts found it in his heart to comment personally about his views on "androgynous" appearing people, illegitimate children, and people associated with such not, in his opinion, being suitable for an award by the President, even though they've done so much for a good cause. ( no I'm not a Jackson fan )

Bush is one of the good old boys and he knows exactly what he's doing and who he's dealing with. There is no way in HELL Bush would appoint someone as supreme court justice if he didn't know exactly who he was appointing.

[Squirt]

So I don't necessarily see any hypocrisy or even prejudice there. I see him thinking about the best interests of the people he represents and performing the duties of the position he had.

Oddly enough the people he represented felt it was acceptable to award an "androgynous" person who sings of illegitimate children.

Strange that John Roberts was more conservative in his opinion then the ultra conservative Regan administration who thought AIDS was a gay disease. These are important things to consider IMHO

.

[desslock]

Oddly enough the people he represented felt it was acceptable to award an "androgynous" person who sings of illegitimate children.

Strange that John Roberts was more conservative in his opinion then the ultra conservative Regan administration who thought AIDS was a gay disease. These are important things to consider IMHO

.

In other words - you just don't like the people who appointed him.

Steve

[BDBionic]

How is Roberts more conservative simply in having advised against Reagan allowing himself to be identified with Jackson? Don't like Michael Jackson and all of a sudden you're a religious fundie?

Look at that photo. Poor Reagan looks like a moron standing there with Jackson, which is precisely what Roberts was advising him to avoid.

I think you're confusing someone acting within the context of their position and the interests of the entity they represent and personal opinion.

Roberts worked for, represented, and was charged with looking out for the best interests of the Reagan administration. And it's within that context he made those comments and advised Reagan so. It's really desperate digging for anything with which to condemn the man if his advice to Reagan over Jackson is all we can find to criticize him.

[Squirt]

In other words - you just don't like the people who appointed him.

Steve

Whenever I talk about the government I mean the government, not hating the individual people. I do however hate Bush, and I don't use the word hate lightly. I'm not a political person and Bush is the first person in politics I've genuinely come to despise. It's not a Republican vs Democrat thing as I'm an independent. I can go on about Bush but I wont.

In regards to Roberts he might be a totally cool guy. He might be a closet case ( which I strongly believe, no joke ) I'm just trying to raise awareness as to where he really might be coming from. When a person doesn't speak out about their beliefs, you have to go by their previous actions, and comments, to find out what they're about. I am strongly concerned about him casting androgyny, and children born to unwed mothers, in a negative light. I'm strongly concerned that he labels children born to unwed mothers as "illegitimate". His comments show a strong lack of compassion, and empathy for people, which I find disturbing. He was younger at the time and people change. He is most likely a different person now then he was back in the Reagan years, for better or worse I just don't know.

Will the world come to an end if Roberts is on the Supreme Court, no. Is Roberts a nice guy, probably. Is there reason to question why Bush picked this particular person, yes. Am I, like other responsible citizens, trying to find out who this guy is and how he can impact the future of America, yes. That's all.

Do you dislike the people who appointed him?

[Squirt]

I think you're confusing someone acting within the context of their position and the interests of the entity they represent and personal opinion.

Well Roberts' personal opinion was that androgyny is a negative thing and that children born to unwed mothers are illegitimate. That is was I found disturbing and the whole reason for my post.

Carefully read this quote: "If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose 'Michael,' as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson's androgynous life style, a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President."

This isn't a professional "Mr. president your constitutes might feel -fill in the blank-" or "Mr. president the American people -fill in the blank-"

Roberts was right about Jackson and how the president would be perceived. I would have given the same advice but left out the speculation of Jackson taking female hormones, illegitimate children and androgyny, as those are Roberts personal opinions, not mine.

Reading the language and innuendo of the quote above tells you a lot about where Roberts was coming from at the time, most important is the language. "well, then, I suppose", "Quite apart from", "as he is affectionately known in the trade", this kind of language isn't what you find in professional briefs. His language also reflects a certain arrogance in casting androgyny (a cousin of homosexuality) in a negative light, while labeling children of unwed mothers as "illegitimate". He projects an elitist attitude towards those who are different from himself and I find that disturbing for someone wh's in running for the Supreme Court.

People change.. this was quite a while ago.. I think he was in his 30's when he had these views.

[desslock]

Ok - when I try to keep perspective on politics, I always pit people with opposites. So think of it like this

Ruth Bader Ginsberg worked for the ACLU for years. Now, her detractors probably pasted every single and wide ranging ACLU legal position as her own. Would that be a reasonable thing to do?

Stephen Breyer was legal counsel for Sen. Kennedy. Does this translate into all of his work with Kennedy as his own judicial philosophy?

Stephen Breyer wrote the unfavorable opinion against us in last year's Internet porn free speech case which effectively scuttled COPA. (this is the most recent SC desicion about our business) I guess if you want to think back about this then: that means that Our Lobby, the Adult Publisher and Webmaster Lobby, should have taken out ads and raised awareness AGAINST Stephen Breyer during his nomination?

I suspect that what actually happened was folks sent hefty checks to Clinton/Gore and People For The American Way. (not you Squirt... I'm sloppily painting with that convenient broad brush again )

That is because he was appointed by the Good Guys.

The Right will assert that Ruth Bader Ginsberg wants to viciously kill all unborn babies, while the Left will assert that John Roberts is a neanderthal bigot and chomping at the bit to "turn back the clock on all of our civil rights." Look at the sizes of PForTheAmericanWay or MoveOn or Human Rights Campaign or the Family Research Council - that is big moneymaking business.

Steve

PS: To address your very nice writings - I just don't find a big problem with Roberts. He seems like a moderate conservative. That's about it. And the fact that he played a big part in a landmark gay rights case shows he's got good senses. The bad things I was looking for in an appointee are idealogues like Robert Bork, or a politician who would be inclined to let the Legislative Branch pass laws willy nilly.

[BDBionic]

a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President."

That's the key right there, in how I read it.

Again, he's advising a conservative president against doing something that could potentially conflict - especially in perception - with that president's agenda and platform and reflect negatively upon the president.

I simply don't see this as having anything to do with his personal beliefs or opinions or indicate any ounce of prejudice. He may indeed have prejudices. Who knows? But this instance re: the Michael Jackson thing doesn't do anything to indicate whether or not they exist. And trying to label it as an indicator is an attempt to make something out of nothing for lack of anything more substantive.

He was counsel to the Reagan White House, making recommendations as such. Can he not have been phrasing his comments as devil's advocate, presenting his recommendations in a manner that'd most effectively deliver his point?

I see in Roberts a man who is able to apply himself fully to the task at hand, regardless of his own personal opinions. Which is why we see in his writings and briefs from the past such effectively delivered arguments that often conflict with other arguments he's made. And why it's so difficult for people to try and peg an ideology upon him (thus leading to things like this Michael Jackson situation being blown way out of proportion and attempts to decipher his beliefs and opinions being made from information hardly sufficient for such a thing).

I think it's irresponsible to try and blow things liike this out of proportion and doesn't lead to an informed, accurate, fair or reliable perception of the man to attempt to draw conclusions from such instances.

[Squirt]

To address your very nice writings - I just don't find a big problem with Roberts. He seems like a moderate conservative. That's about it. And the fact that he played a big part in a landmark gay rights case shows he's got good senses. The bad things I was looking for in an appointee are idealogues like Robert Bork, or a politician who would be inclined to let the Legislative Branch pass laws willy nilly.

I obviously find a problem with his views in this particular case. We can't judge a man on one writing, or two. Who he was at the time he wrote those docs to Reagan is what I find disturbing. He could be different now.

I'm glad he worked on the Gay rights case as well. From what I've read he did his job well. We don't know the circumstances with him being on the case. What if nobody else in the law firm was available, and he was the only one and begrudgingly worked on the case with the stipulation of not working on the arguments and opinions of the case? That's a worst-case scenario and since we don't know the circumstances we can only speculate. I wrote essays in college on topics I didn't agree with, but I did a damn good job because that was my assignment. We cannot say that he's automatically sympathetic towards our community just because he worked on one case as an employee of a law firm.

In the end it's all speculation and conjecture with him, which I find disturbing.

[BDBionic]

As a total aside... wow Jackson sure has changed . I always forget just how much until I see an older photo of him.

[Squirt]

I think it's irresponsible to try and blow things liike this out of proportion and doesn't lead to an informed, accurate, fair or reliable perception of the man to attempt to draw conclusions from such instances.

I think it's irresponsible to ignore the personal statements a Supreme Court nominee makes when consulting the president of the United States and say they were just doing their job by calling the children of unwed mothers illegitimate and casting a negative light on personas related to the Gay community.

I quoted the man. There was no blowing things out of proportion. The man said himself, in the quote I supplied, that children of unwed mothers are illegitimate and casts a negative light on androgyny, a persona of the Gay community. Roberts was speaking in the first person at that point, not a narrative. :groovy: