The Political Spectrum

I am generally a little more circumspect in decrying media bias than my colleague Gipper Clone. I do believe that there is a general bias in the mainstream media, but my main beef with the media is that they, to put it politely, stink. I just about never watch any cable news because I would like to think I am above being spoonfed the news stories that the media proprietors think interesting. I really am not all that interested in some missing Alabama girl. And don't even get me started on the local news. There isn't enough alcohol on Earth in order for me to get through the typical nightly newscast. Print media is little better. The Wall Street Journal is excellent, and the New York Sun, from what little I have seen of it, is not so bad. The Washington Post is usually pretty solid. And that's about it. Usually I resort to blogs and overseas news outlets if I want substantive information.

And about the Washington Post. As I said, it's generally a reasonably balanced and informative paper. But every now and then they run a story that reveals a bit of a leftist tilt. This was made all the more apparent in today's edition with a front-page strory blaring this headline: Roberts Resisted Women's Rights.

Did John Roberts advocate repeal of the 19th amendment? Nope, doesn't seem like it. Did he call for women to be shackled barefoot in the kitchen? Um, let's see . . . no, apparently not.

What then of the allegation that Roberts "resisted" women's rights? Another batch of memos released yesterday revealed that while in the Reagan White House Roberts, and settle yourself now, objected to the Equal Rights amendment and

said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women the same as men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."

Woah, Nellie. You mean to tell me Roberts wasn't blown away by a Marxist economic theory (comparative worth) that would have mandated that bureaucrats determine how much a job is worth and then restructure the wage system accordingly? The loon. So he doesn't think it's constitutional to have a system whereby a judge determines that a truck driver and a laundry worker are "worth" the same and should be paid the same? Outrageous!

And as for the Equal Rights Amendment, Ed Whelan knocks it out of the park thusly:

The article asserts that “Roberts urged President Ronald Reagan to refrain from embracing any form” of the ERA. The documents that I have seen show, rather, that Roberts pointed out to others in the White House that “[m]any of the President’s objections to the ERA are based not on the particular language of the [then-pending] proposal but rather the vehicle of a Constitutional amendment.” These same objections—that the ERA would “override the prerogatives of the States and vest the federal judiciary with broader powers” and that it is “not necessary to secure equal rights” (since ordinary legislative action was available for any steps deemed appropriate)—would apply to any other version of the ERA. In short, Roberts was explaining the clear implications of established Reagan administration policy

The other allegation against Roberts, according to the article, is that he questioned "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." Right then and there alarm bells should be ringing because there's got to be more context to the quote, and indeed there was. Later in the article said context is revealed:

His remark on whether homemakers should become lawyers came in 1985 in reply to a suggestion from Linda Chavez, then the White House's director of public liaison. Chavez had proposed entering her deputy, Linda Arey, in a contest sponsored by the Clairol shampoo company to honor women who had changed their lives after age 30. Arey had been a schoolteacher who decided to change careers and went to law school.

In a July 31, 1985, memo, Roberts noted that, as an assistant dean at the University of Richmond law school before she joined the Reagan administration, Arey had "encouraged many former homemakers to enter law school and become lawyers." Roberts said in his memo that he saw no legal objection to her taking part in the Clairol contest. Then he added a personal aside: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide."

So he was making a lawyers joke. Perhaps it was a bad one, but obviously it was a sarcastic jibe at the influx of people into the legal profession. So it seems the objection to Roberts then is that he has a sense of humor. Perish the thought!

Hey, is that a pole sticking out of your ass? You might want to take that out.