home

John Roberts Argued for National ID Card

By Jeralyn, Section John Roberts
Posted on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:34:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

USA Today reports that in 1983, Judge John Roberts lobbied for a national ID card.

When he worked in the Reagan White House in 1983, John Roberts made the case for a national ID card, saying in a memo that it would help address the “real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration.”

I'm beginning to think the confimation hearings may get feisty after all. If they don't, there's something wrong with our Senate Democrats.

< Habeas Bill: Don't Do It | Friday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    John Roberts Argued for National ID Card | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    A man ahead of his time. Read this and you can see the mold from whence he sprang: The Lewis F. Powel memo from 1971.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    If they don't, there's something wrong with our Senate Democrats.
    I knew that full frontal lobotomy / castration program was a bad idea.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#3)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Is this a joke or what? john my-boy Roberts is doing what he is told to do. Back when Bush one was V.P Under the old guy in 1983 he also was friends with old saddam, do any of you remember that he was the best of friends with bush one? and he backed the idea of bombing Israel after the jewish guys bomb the hell out of saddam nuke plant, old boy roberts is a made guy now and will do what he is told to do by our oligarchies that bush is taking his orders from. when Uncontrolled immigration is called for that is what will happen, as far as bush cares saddam could like bin laden rape you and that wouldn't be any kind of problem for the power people who look at you just as things to be used. this old move for a so called national I.D. Card is as old as the hills and will be sold under the terror act that is being played out right now. by the way Bush and Fox have made a deal for mass amnesty, but also remember that we have 500,000 guys and girls from asia also living in the so called land of freedom, all of what you see is phony and this government is nothing but a government of foreign political interests, so what new? the truth can set you free and how long before we see a Islamsts president? Bush is a tool just like all the other pigs in the white-house over the last 35 years. where is bin laden?

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Most conservatives, when they thought for themselves instead of blindly following Bush, hated the idea of national ID's as much, if not more so, than liberals. I miss those days.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#5)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    What, exactly, is the problem with a national ID card? As noted by Roberts himself, we already have such an identifier in our Social Security numbers, so it's not as if the idea is without precedent. In addition, if we were to ever accept the liberal vision of nationalized healthcare, one can only assume that it would come with a healthcare card, which would be a defacto national ID card. And then there is the concept of actually being able to secure our elections against fraud by using such IDs to track who had voted, and where. Now I'm not saying that I'm signing onto the idea, as it clearly does represent yet another opportunity for abuses by future administrations, but the best this posting shows is that Roberts is a man who will speak his mind when he disagrees with his boss. I would have thought that would be applauded here.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    I'm a bit confused (nothing new there, I know) - I thought the job of an in-house counsel was to argue positions requested. Sorta like, would we disqualify someone for defending an accused murderer who was convicted and then confessed? Kinda a lawyers job to argue all sorts of things seperate from belief, no? -C

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#7)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Or put it this way: Presumeably, the complaint is that Roberts is somehow unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice because he supports (or at least used to) the concept of a national ID card. If this is the argument, how is this a problem? Is a national ID card somehow unconstitutional? If so, on what grounds? I can understand that one might be opposed to such a thing, but how is his support for it likely to make the hearings contentious? Are we going to see an argument made against a nominee on the grounds that he might support something that is constitutional? If so, will simple opposition to an idea be an adequate reason for opposing a liberal nominee who supports abortion rights?

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    cliff & JP- Robert's nomination is unfit, as long as the WH refuses to hand over any of the documents Congress demanded. We do not live in a Monarchy yet even if you voted for one.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    as it clearly does represent yet another opportunity for abuses by future administrations
    That's really my only reason to be against a national ID jpaul, the potential for abuse outweighs any benefits, and it just generally makes me uneasy. Everytime I look at my SS card I shed a little tear inside, because right on the damn card it states "not to be used for identification purposes". Nowadays, you can't take a piss without someone asking for your SS number.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    As part of heightened security post-Sept. 11, all new U.S. passports issued by the end of 2005 are expected to have a chip containing the holders' name, birth date and issuing office, as well as a "biometric" identifier - a photo of the holders' face. The photo is the international standard for biometrics, but countries are free to add other biometrics, such as fingerprints, for greater accuracy.
    The next obvious step of course is chip implants at birth containing personal information and so all pure US citizens can be readily identified at a moment's notice.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#11)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Robert's nomination is unfit, as long as the WH refuses to hand over any of the documents Congress demanded. We do not live in a Monarchy yet even if you voted for one. Squeaky once again exhibits his inability to differentiate fact from fantasy. I can't speak for Cliff, but you have no idea who I voted for; I assure you it was no one who was running for monarch. And we'll see how you feel about Congress and it's never ending demand for everything even remotely connected with a nominee when it's Hillary making the nominations and Trent Lott making the demands. Kdog, I can understand being against a national ID on those grounds, but then I can understand being against a lot of ideas, liberal and conservative, on the grounds that the open us up to the possibility of more abuses. But do we really want to oppose a nominee on the grounds that the support something that is constitutional? I think we can do better than that.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    justpaul - Just for the record, Bush II was the first Republican I ever supported for president. But I still don't really have an answer about why a position Roberts took 22 years ago is relevant today. If anything, since it's been (and should continue to be) a non-starter that should comfort everyone. -C

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#13)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Cliff, Thanks, I guess, but I really don't concern myself with who you voted for. That's your business. But how many were running on a platform of Monarchy?

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    JP- You are lying or stupid, or conveniently forgetting a few details.
    And we'll see how you feel about Congress and it's never ending demand for everything even remotely connected with a nominee....
    Fact or fantasy: Congress has not gotten one, yes, not one scrap of a document that they requested in order to review the Roberts nomination. Fact or fantasy: Your Chimp King was lying when he or his lackeys claimed that Attorney client privilege is in force here. He even had the gaul to mention that a "distiguished group of bipartisan lawyers" agreed with his position. Well yes they agreed, but he forgot to mention that they lost in court, when Clinton tried to pull the A/C privilege when ken Starr asked for WH lawyer docs. Starr, Roberts boss, said there was no such privilege: attorneys working for the WH are working for the American People.
    The dispute was one of many legal tussles during Starr's six-year investigation of the Whitewater matter. It resulted in a broad appeals court ruling that held that government lawyers did not have the same right to keep secrets as private attorneys did. The court agreed with Starr that the attorney-client privilege did not shield the White House lawyers or their notes. "We decline to endorse the position of the White House where it is based on nothing more than political concerns," the appeals court said.
    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Those who want to enforce immigration laws understand that a national ID card is key to doing so. Those who are happy with the status quo, on the other hand, should oppose the national ID, since it would make it harder for illegals to live in the USA.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    justpaul - I do not think that word means what you think it means. Someone has to do the Princess Bride jokes around here! Remember, in 2008, Vote Pedro! -C

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#17)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Squeaky, My fantasy comment had to do with your obvious assumption that I supported Bush specifically and monarchy in general. Sorry that your limited supply of radical left rhetoric leaves you unable to deal with the real world, but that's your problem and you'll have to learn to deal with reality on your own. Maybe if you'd read posts before commenting, you would find yourself tasting your Keds less often. But I'll offer a hint to help you on the way: Not everyone here ascribes to your personal stereotypes. Get used to it. We all have our own interests. Cliff, I can only assume you are referring to the word "monarchy". If so, it doesn't matter what you or I think it means; Squeaky is the one who brought it up, and his definition was rather clear. As for The Princess Bride: It's a fine film.

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#18)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    A national ID card means we would have to justify our presence to the "authorities" at any place, at any time; otherwise, why have it? I thought the constitution says we are supposed to be secure in our persons and our papers. Why would anyone willingly submit to this?

    Re: John Roberts Argued for National ID Card (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    JP-Seperation of Powers=Radical left rhetoric? Real world? ''Your own interests" coincidentally reflect RNC spin de jour. Whether you voted for the Chimp King or not, you are spreading his gospel. Oh, and that pesky Congress is just so annoying:
    And we'll see how you feel about Congress and it's never ending demand for everything even remotely connected with a nominee....
    You can go on about Keds, Fantasy, and other diversionary flim flam in order to escape from discussing the real point here. The WH has refused to hand over any of the Roberts related documents requested by Congress, zero, zilch, nada, not a one. In your 'real world' Congress should just shut up, behave and watch the Feature Presentation: "King George Reclaims the Throne"

    John Roberts Argued for National ID Card | 19 comments (19 topical)