Skip to main content

View Diary: ANTI-antidiscrimination Chief justice - 2 in a row, Roberts and Rehnquist (6 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  While I think you make a number of good points (none)
    in your diary, I think it is a huge mistake for the left to overreach.  There are lots of good reasons to vote against Roberts.  So why the hyperbole?

    What Roberts' actually said about the alleged "fundamental right to be free from discrimination," is that "There is of course no such right; at the very least 'illegal' should modify 'discrimination,'" Roberts wrote. "More significantly, 'fundamental right' is a legal term of art triggering strict judicial scrutiny."

    Guess what?  He's correct.  Our Constitution permits many different forms of discrimination.  It also prohibits many different forms of discrimination.  But, there is no fundamental right to be free from discrimination generally.

    •  Well, it may be technically so (none)
      but I'm sure there are plenty of top lawyers who would not have struck all the language, maybe would have inserted the word illegal, or removed the word fundamental.

      This view seems to have informed nearly every position he ever staked for himself!

      I agree with John Lewis and Harry Reid; he's been "on the wrong side of history" on voting rights, women's equity and civil rights.

    •  Illegal Discrimination (none)
      Is not defined constitutionally at all.  It's judge made law.  So is the concept of strict scrutiny.

      And that's not an accident.  

      Thus, anti-discrimination law may be the one place where you really can discern how a person is likely to rule by reading his or her opinions.  

      My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

      by shanikka on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 03:33:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site