"The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth."
-'Publius' The Federalist No. 1
'For young conservatives such as Roberts, many of whom had spent the years of the Carter presidency in elite schools or cooling their political heels, the first two years of Ronald Reagan's presidency were a heady period. Civil rights was an issue of enormous importance to the Republican Party's fortunes and to businesses and local or state governments frustrated by what they regarded as decades of judicial intrusion into their activities.'
Leave it to the Washington Post to be 'fair and balanced' in their reporting. They might as well be forthright, and just state that all Republicans were out to roll-back civil rights during the Reagan Administration.
Could it be that the struggle for civil rights in this country had achieved what it needed from the courts? No respectable conservative I know of is attempting to state that no individual deserves a day in court or that ideas cannot be triumphed in court. What should be gleamed here is that conservatives see the need to place the power in the hands of the voter. Thus, again furthering the illustration of the rift between conservatives and liberals in going about dispersing their ideological standpoints. Here, it seems as though John Roberts was striving to lessen the crutch of using the judiciary as a means of moving forward with an agenda. It is unfortunate that this may be used as some ammunition to derail is nomination. It is merely ply a difference of opinion. Conservatives believe choices should me made by voters, not by courts. The proper place for an agenda is not the judiciary.