Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Frenchfry and Bob Jones University

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 07:27 AM
Original message
Judge Frenchfry and Bob Jones University
Here's a good question...why is what Judge Frenchfry said about getting the racists at segregated Bob Jones University a tax break being kept from the public?

"A D V E R T I S E M E N T


WASHINGTON - While an associate counsel in the Reagan White House, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts Jr., made an intellectual argument for limiting the application of federal anti-discrimination laws, but he counseled the administration that for political reasons it should not adopt his view.
The advice from Judge Roberts is contained in a July 24, 1985, memorandum he wrote to the White House counsel, Fred Fielding. The two-page memo was obtained by The New York Sun yesterday from the Reagan Library, which houses a veritable treasure trove of documents that Judge Roberts handled during his four-year stint at the White House.
The battle over the civil rights legislation continued for several years, but ultimately Mr. Kennedy prevailed. His bill passed in March 1988. Reagan vetoed it and his veto was overridden.
A co-president of the National Women's Law Center, Nancy Duff Campbell, said she was disturbed by the nominee's description of Mr. Kennedy's bill as radical. "That's pretty distressing that he would say that. That's the bill that ultimately passed. That's settled law," she said. "This memorandum does raise concerns about what his views are on civil rights law."
Judge Roberts also kept a file on at least one other contentious civil rights issue, the conflict over the government's right to strip the tax exemption of Bob Jones University because of its ban on interracial dating. That file is not among those presently available for review, according to the library's listing."

http://www.nysun.com/article/17393

For those too young to remember--Bob Jones University, founded by one of the most virulent bigots in the nation, was segregated. In 1982, Trent Lott urged the Reagan administration to make it tax-exempt, although Federal law prohibited that for segregated institutions. (Lott had already tried and failed to get Congress to do so.) At the urging of a bunch of staffers, Reagan wrote and signed a memo supporting the idea...but when the memo became public, the Gipper had to disown it, saying he had been misled and he had no idea segregation still existed anywhere. Bob Jones U. also sued for tax-exempt status...the case went to the Supreme Court in 1983, and Bob Jones/Jim Crow lost 8-1 (Rehnquist was the only dissenter).

It would be very interesting to know if Judge Frenchfry was one of those who had misled the Gipper and pimped for Jim Crow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. So much for the "just working for the client" argument.
A guy whose legal memoranda are too conservative for client Reagan admin. to adopt, and guess what is going on today?

Churches and theological institutions are in politics and business, bringing their own little prejudices and chrisitans only ideologies, and nobody is saying boo about their tax exemptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And what a client, too!!
By the way, I suggest a lot of the motivation for the "faith based" rubbish is an attempt to reinstitute segregation...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. You may very well be on to something there.
I hadn't considered that aspect before, but the logic is there.

I think it's possible to frame the issue that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wierd
A virulent anti-Catholic is supported by a Catholic judge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mandomom Donating Member (327 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. It's not about the religious affiliation.
IMHO, it may instead be all about the old world views of segegating the races and old money families.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. the Senate will have a fine time discussing this
in another 6 weeks or so. Wonder if they can get olde Bad Hair Trent to come and tell "his side of the story" ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. P.S. You earn an all-time DU "Greatest Thread Title" nomination
for Judge Frenchfry and Bob Jones University
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
7. Very interesting indeed, MrBenchley. JK has requested all memos and docs
from his years working for Reagan and Bush I be made available to the committee. It will be instructive as to how hard they fight this release of these memos and documents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mandomom Donating Member (327 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
8. Roberts Fries Desegregation for Bob Jones
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
10. Drift's started to occur already.
Hard to fight drift.

Roberts said Kennedy's bill--before it was voted on in Congress--"radically extended" civil rights law as applied to institutions, and, at the time, that's pretty much how it was perceived. Maybe "thorough-going" would be more neutral, but it would carry the same meaning. It was (Duff) Campbell who said he said it was a "radical" bill. The two are different statements, but while her characterization of his description (as well as his description) was quoted as such 24 hours ago, it's already becoming established as his description.

On the other hand, legally he said X, but politically he said Y. Which is, of course, something a lawyer can do--yes, you *could* prosecute the suit, but it would be a PR nightmare, so it's better not to. The first is doing what the client wants--I don't see the implication that this was unsolicited, or contrary to what the Reagan administration wanted--the second part is the lawyer's more personal advice. "Is it possible for me to do X?" "Yes, but ...."

It *would* be interesting to see what Roberts' file on BJ University contains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-05 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. This guy is a hack
and has been carrying the water for them for a long time. Looks like he's another Scalia or Thomas in the way he views civil rights. Kerry has said he'll grill him on this issue. I hope Democrats don't go soft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 17th 2024, 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC