The liberal lefty MSM has done it again. Not satisfied with one hatchet job, it is repeated here.
First, USA Today says that Judge "Roberts scoffed at equal-pay theory". The article goes on to repeat the "scoffed" accusation and says Judge Roberts , "scoffed at the notion that men and women should earn equal pay in jobs of comparable importance, and he belittled three female Republican members of Congress who promoted that idea to the Reagan administration." Let's take a look at what Roberts really said, as quoted in the article by USA Today, itself. First, some definitions:
scoff v(I) to speak about someone or something in a way which shows that you have no respect for them
belittle v(T) to make (an action or a person) seem unimportant
At no time in the article does USA Today provide any evidence whatsoever that Judge Roberts either spoke about "equal-pay" with no respect nor attempted to make Rep. Olympia Snowe, Rep. Nancy Johnson, who is still a House member from Connecticut, and Rep. Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island seem unimportant. In fact, the "equal-pay theory" was not the issue in question. The issue in question was "comparable-worth", which the USA Today article finally gets around to mentioning in paragraph 8. The comparable-worth theory states that people working in different jobs in different industries should be paid the same if it can be established that the jobs they perform hold comparable value, require comparable effort, require comparable education and training and experience, the persons performing those jobs have comparable seniority, etc, etc.. And Judge Roberts' objections were founded in simple common sense. Who will make the decision that 2 disparate jobs in 2 disparate industries or service sectors hold comparable worth? Who will decide if those two jobs require comparable training, education and experience? Who will decide if the job holders have comparable skills, knowledge, seniority and work habits? Who would decide if a female worker in a laundry should be paid the same as a truck driver? A judge? A group of judges? The US Department of Labor? The AFL-CIO or the US Chamber of Commerce? Ridiculous.
So, at no time in the documents quoted by USA Today did John Roberts scoff or belittle. He wrote that he was "troubled" by the contentions made by the 3 representatives. The entire article is garbage. Oh, by the way, in paragraph 12, the final paragraph of the article, USA Today admits as how Judge Roberts warned against any presidential pardon for abortion clinic bombers. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals." And Roberts added that "neither the cause ... nor the target of their violence will in any way be considered to mitigate the seriousness of their offense against our laws." Thank you, USA Today.
Now as to the Newsday hatchet job, it suffers almost as badly. The headline states, "Nominee Roberts, in '84, called equal pay for women 'radical'". No, he did not. The same problem exists here as in the USA Today article. "Equal-pay" was not the issue. The issue was comparable-worth. And he did not call equal-pay "radical". He said, "I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept," again referring to comparable-worth, not equal-pay. Why do we continue to buy and read this garbage?
UPDATE: Thanks, Professor. Visit Professor Bainbridge to get a legal scholar's viewpoint.
TAGS: Judge John Roberts, equal-pay, comparable-worth, MSM, liberal press, garbage