Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) went out fourth after Chairman Specter (R-PA), ranking member Leahy (D-VT), and Senator Hatch (R-UT). He led his remarks off with a rant on the afteraffects of Hurricane Katrina, proceded to bring up race, and spent most of his time asking longwinded questions, and interrupting Roberts's responses. His interruptions got so bad that the Chair had to intervene several times so that questions could be answered by Roberts.
Kennedy closed with a false premise, misreprenting the Reagan administration position on Title IX, extrapolating his misrepresentation to Roberts.
To which Roberts promptly dissected the false premise, which dealt with the Grove City Title IX case, and how far federal funds required colleges to comply with title IX. Kennedy attempted to make it into Roberts and Reagan into being in favor of discrimination, while Roberts relayed that the IX regulations only applied to the portion receiving federal funds, i.e. the admissions office. It should be noted that the Court sided with the Reagan Adminsitration in Grove City.
QUOTE
KENNEDY: Then, even though you acknowledged that the program- specific aspect of the Supreme Court decision was going to be overturned by the congressional legislation, you continued to believe that it would be, quote, too onerous for colleges to comply with nondiscrimination laws across the entire university unless it was, quote, on the basis of something more solid than federal aid to students.
Judge Roberts, if your position prevailed, it would have been legal in many cases to discriminate in athletics for girls, women. It would have been legal to discriminate in the hiring of teachers. It would have been legal not to provide services or accommodations to the disabled.
Do you still believe today that it is too onerous for the government to require universities that accept tuition payments from students who rely on federal grants and loans not to discriminate in any of their programs or activities?
ROBERTS: No, Senator, and I did not back then. You have not accurately represented my position.
KENNEDY: These are your words.
SPECTER: Let him finish his answer. That was a quite long question.
ROBERTS: Senator, you have selected…
SPECTER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Senator Kennedy just propounded a very, very long question.
Now, let him answer the question. ROBERTS: Senator, you did not accurately represent my position. The Grove City College case presented two separate questions, and it was a matter being litigated, of course, in the courts. The universities were arguing that they were not covered at all by the civil rights laws in question simply because their students had federal financial assistance and attended their universities. That was their first argument. The second argument was, even if they were covered, all that was covered was the admissions office and not other programs that themselves did not receive separate financial assistance. Our position, the position of the administration — and, again, that was the position I was advancing. I was not formulating policy. I was articulating and defending the administration’s position. ROBERTS: And the administration’s position was, yes, you are covered if the students receive federal financial assistance and that the coverage extended to the admissions office. That was the position that the Supreme Court agreed with. We were interpreting legislation.
The question is: What is the correct interpretation of the legislation? The position that the administration advanced was the one I just described: The universities were covered due to federal financial assistance to their students. It extended to the admissions office.
The Supreme Court in the Grove City case agreed with that position. So the position the administration had articulated, the Supreme Court concluded, was a correct interpretation of what this body, the Congress, had enacted. Congress then changed the position about coverage. And that position was, I believe, signed into law by the president and that became the new law.
The memo you read about Secretary Bell’s proposal, if I remember it, was, well, he said: If we’re going to cover all of the universities, then we shouldn’t hinge coverage simply on federal financial assistance.
And the position I took in the memorandum was that, no, we should not revisit that question. We should not revisit the question that federal financial assistance triggers coverage.
KENNEDY: Well, you’re familiar — I have the memo here. I have 22 seconds left. Your quote of this: If the entire institution is to be covered, however, it should be on the basis of something more solid than federal aid to the students. I think most of the members of the Congress feel that if the aid to the universities, the tuition and the loans and the grants are going to be sufficient to trigger all of the civil rights laws, your memoranda here, If the entire institution is to be covered, however, it should be on the basis of something more solid than federal aid to the students. That’s your memorandum.
ROBERTS: Well, Senator, again, the administration policy was as I articulated it. And it was my job to articulate the administration policy.
KENNEDY: My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Full morning transcript from CQ via Confirmthem.com (covering Specter, Leahy, Hatch & Kennedy)Judge Roberts, if your position prevailed, it would have been legal in many cases to discriminate in athletics for girls, women. It would have been legal to discriminate in the hiring of teachers. It would have been legal not to provide services or accommodations to the disabled.
Do you still believe today that it is too onerous for the government to require universities that accept tuition payments from students who rely on federal grants and loans not to discriminate in any of their programs or activities?
ROBERTS: No, Senator, and I did not back then. You have not accurately represented my position.
KENNEDY: These are your words.
SPECTER: Let him finish his answer. That was a quite long question.
ROBERTS: Senator, you have selected…
SPECTER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Senator Kennedy just propounded a very, very long question.
Now, let him answer the question. ROBERTS: Senator, you did not accurately represent my position. The Grove City College case presented two separate questions, and it was a matter being litigated, of course, in the courts. The universities were arguing that they were not covered at all by the civil rights laws in question simply because their students had federal financial assistance and attended their universities. That was their first argument. The second argument was, even if they were covered, all that was covered was the admissions office and not other programs that themselves did not receive separate financial assistance. Our position, the position of the administration — and, again, that was the position I was advancing. I was not formulating policy. I was articulating and defending the administration’s position. ROBERTS: And the administration’s position was, yes, you are covered if the students receive federal financial assistance and that the coverage extended to the admissions office. That was the position that the Supreme Court agreed with. We were interpreting legislation.
The question is: What is the correct interpretation of the legislation? The position that the administration advanced was the one I just described: The universities were covered due to federal financial assistance to their students. It extended to the admissions office.
The Supreme Court in the Grove City case agreed with that position. So the position the administration had articulated, the Supreme Court concluded, was a correct interpretation of what this body, the Congress, had enacted. Congress then changed the position about coverage. And that position was, I believe, signed into law by the president and that became the new law.
The memo you read about Secretary Bell’s proposal, if I remember it, was, well, he said: If we’re going to cover all of the universities, then we shouldn’t hinge coverage simply on federal financial assistance.
And the position I took in the memorandum was that, no, we should not revisit that question. We should not revisit the question that federal financial assistance triggers coverage.
KENNEDY: Well, you’re familiar — I have the memo here. I have 22 seconds left. Your quote of this: If the entire institution is to be covered, however, it should be on the basis of something more solid than federal aid to the students. I think most of the members of the Congress feel that if the aid to the universities, the tuition and the loans and the grants are going to be sufficient to trigger all of the civil rights laws, your memoranda here, If the entire institution is to be covered, however, it should be on the basis of something more solid than federal aid to the students. That’s your memorandum.
ROBERTS: Well, Senator, again, the administration policy was as I articulated it. And it was my job to articulate the administration policy.
KENNEDY: My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Fast forward to just after noon. Grassley (R-IA) followed Kennedy, and was fairly bland. Grassley is a farmer after all. Disgraced (for plagiarism) former presidential candidate (1988) Joe Biden (D-DE) followed, and at one point interrupted Roberts after 15 seconds of an answer with the retort: "You're filibustering" to which the room erupted in laughter at the idiocy of the comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment