John Roberts as American historian

[Sanford Levinson]

This is the beginning of a story in today's Washington Post.  Whatever one thinks of Roberts, isn't his view simply "the truth" and, for example, the Court's self-serving encomium to itself in Cooper v. Aaron, if not a lie, then certainly not anything near to an accurate rendition of American history?  Surely he ought not be criticized for his comment, even if it is readily understandable why Reagan might choose to engage in ordinary pap in a proposed letter.


sandy


Sifting Old, New Writings For Roberts's Philosophy




By R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 21, 2005; Page A01 

John G. Roberts Jr. was keen to correct a proposed letter for President Ronald Reagan's signature that said the federal courts have "earned and enjoyed the confidence of the American people . . . for [their] impartiality, independence, and fairness."

Then a young White House lawyer, Roberts wrote in 1983 that in reality "the federal judiciary has been viewed by the American people with active distrust from the very beginning." Other writings by Roberts from this period suggest he might just as well have added: "particularly by me."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050821/ec78b2d2/attachment.html