Trying to Light Fire with Smoke

Apparently, the Reasonable are still fuming over the NARAL backfire. This report from the Chicago Tribune, "Roberts criticized equal pay decision," looks like a similar "gotcha." This latest charade will most likely suffer the same fate as the previous version of Roberts=Woman-hater version 1.0.

Reporters Jan Crawford Greenburg and Naftali Bendavid begin their hatchet job report with the this hook:

As a young lawyer in the Reagan White House, Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts Jr. helped shape the debate on some of the era's most controversial issues, including abortion and school prayer. And he held nothing back when analyzing the revolutionary theory of "comparable worth," a proposal to pay women the same salaries as men even when they were in different jobs.

Yes, quite reprehensible for a conservative to stand in the way of something "revolutionary." And look who he's opposing this time: why, women again! It's as though the MSM is fixated on how Judge Roberts will abuse women during his tenure as Justice.

Mss. Greenburg and Bendavid continue with the following:

The theory, supported by the Carter administration to achieve pay equity, was one of the more contentious labor issues of the time. When a federal judge approved it in Washington state in 1983, Roberts harshly criticized the novel ruling as giving judges, not the market, the power to decide the value of different jobs, according to new documents released Monday.

The judge in the "comparable worth" case had ruled that certain state jobs done primarily by women, such as laundry work, should be paid at the same rate as jobs done by men, such as driving trucks, if their worth to society was roughly the same.

Notice the presence and position of key buzz words: "pay equity" in the same sentence as "theory"--as in theory of "comparable worth." How about "contentious labor issues", as in controversial idea that grants labor rights; another marker is now accounted for. All to establish Judge Roberts clock-turning ways; he "harshly criticized the novel ruling"--as in he opposes the policy that grants these rights to laboring women--"as giving judges, not the market, the power to decide the value of different jobs." Yes, he has no compassion! He'll leave economic justice in the hands of greedy misogynists rather than acquiece to the wisdom of our Robed Masters! Bad conservative! Bad conservative!

And (gasp!) He actually takes the free market economy seriously! O' the humanity! Behold:

"It is difficult to exaggerate the perniciousness of the `comparable worth' theory," Roberts, then an associate White House counsel, wrote to White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding in early 1984. "It mandates nothing less than the central planning of the economy by judges."

Sputtering over themselves to slam him as much as they can, the Reasonable elites trip themselves up. First, they attempt the wedge issue by pointing out Judge Roberts help on the Roemer case. Then, NARAL mouth-foams the nominee as a supporter of abortion-clinic bombers in a ridiculous over-the-top character assassination--and has to recant due to opposition from their own faction. Now, trying to beat the same Roberts-is-a-Catholic-and-the-Church-hates-women drum, these Reasonable reporters sputter about Roberts' unwillingness to let Judges manage the economy. As though this was something conservatives would be angry about!

Instead, this report confirms once more why Judge Roberts is a worthy nominee. He does not countenance judicial activism. He respects the Rule of Law and the separation of Powers. He understands that legislatures and executives--not judges--should fashion laws and policies. He wants the Court to interprete the constitutionality of laws in the light of the constitutions own meaning, not the meaning well-wishing "living document" types would impose upon it. He sounds more and more like a constitutional realist.

As for his position on "comparable worth", I'm not fond of the administration that championed it. To paraphrase the Gospel of John, can anything good come out of the Carter Administration? The entire premise sounds laughable: jobs done by women should receive the same wage as jobs done by men if their (jobs') worth to society was roughly the same. Who decides that? In a free market economy, the employer and employee reach a mutually agreed-upon wage. Given the oddities of our mixed-economy, that can often mean what wage management and unions agree to. Either way, the concept is similar: two parties come together and work out a mutually beneficial relationship. The expertese of each party determines the value of the commodity provided.

What the court did in 1983, however, was decide that the judiciary could determine better than parties of a negotiation what a proper wage for a specific job is. The Federal bench aggregated to itself the authority to determine whether or not jobs were of "comparable worth" to society. By what standard did the bench determine this? What training in economics do judges bring with them to the bench? How qualified are they in making decisions of economic policy? What makes their guess any more valid than the parties to a negotiation?

This is the judicial arrogance that annoys Judge Roberts. He understands that judges can't make these determinations without literally pulling them out of their A****! When they do, however, they have circumvented the market economy, infringed on the freedom of two individual parties to decide their own affairs, and effectively engaged in centralized planning--a noticable trait of command economies such as communism.

Now, if lawmakers and the Reagan administration had reached a sensible way to enact such a "comparable worth" theory, would Judge Roberts have been so outraged? He may not have liked the idea, but he would not begrudge the legislative and Executive branch's right to implement it. That is the way of our Republic. His opposition focuses on the inappropriate intervention of a Federal judge on the domain of the other branches of government. To make matters worse, this intervention results in an economic policy that more closely resembles communism to market enterprise. If he had not been outraged at such a decision, many Conservatives would have had a serious problem!

It's not hard to see why the Reasonable MSM would not get this. They see themselves as being in the middle; they're the moderates. Since they welcome a mixed economy and don't mind a judicial activism (it favors their policy sacred cows, after all), they think everyone that's Reasonable agrees with them. When they see a Fool like Judge Roberts come along, they write him off as a right-wing kook. However, the joke's on them. More mainstream Americans want less judicial activism in their life. Many like America's free-market system and don't look forward to economic policy by judicial fiat. Therefore, the Reasonable MSM's attempt to disrupt Roberts' nomination to SCOTUS backfires again.

No matter how hard they try, the Reasonable can't light a fire with smoke. They can only keep slobbering on the carpet.