August 25, 2005

"He doesn't have a sexist bone in his body."

Said Linda Chavez about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. She's one of the "Women for Roberts," who are trying to prevent what they call "feminists on the left" from dominating what gets said about Roberts and women.

Groups opposing Roberts have made way too much out of his opposition to the "comparable worth" theory, and it's important to counter that. At the same time, the question isn't whether Roberts is "sexist," but how he will resolve various legal issues once he's on the Supreme Court. Interpreting constitutional rights narrowly and limiting the ability of women to seek judicial remedies are things that a judge without "a sexist bone in his body" could easily do. By the same token, I'll bet many of the votes cast in favor of women's rights on the Court over the years came from Justices who were big sexists.


Eddie said...

Great post Ann.

I couldn't agree more about the juxtapositions of justices and how they will vote.

One begins to wonder if the same justices who "praised" Roberts during his prior judicial hearings are going to give him a high-tech lynching, the likes of which Clarence Thomas received during his hearings.

For the record, Ruth Bader Ginsberg said OVER AND OVER again during her hearings that she wouldn't comment on any specific cases, yet was approved with only 3 dissenting GOP votes, in spite of her leftist politics. Ed.


XWL said...

What about Chavez's comment and the extent and vehemence with which she declared Judge Roberts' inability to be sexist inadvertently fitting in with the 'he's probably gay' whisper campaign.

After all, isn't it more or less expected that straight men have a sexist bone or two in their body from time to time?

(I certainly do)

ploopusgirl said...

Wow, something to be proud of, Leroy! :)) Way to promote that right-wing agenda!!