Sen. Patrick Leahy unleashed this zinger yesterday:

… Those papers that we have received paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party then, and now. In influential White House and Department of Justice positions, John Roberts expressed views that were among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights, privacy, and access to justice.

He advocated overturning a Nixon-era Executive Order that assures non-discrimination in federal contracting; he mocked the efforts of women legislators to find a way to remedy the effects of sex discrimination; he wrote of a “so-called right to privacyâ€? and “so-called fundamental rights;â€? he opposed efforts to make the voting rights act more effective; and he championed efforts to strip courts of their ability to grant remedies to civil rights plaintiffs, taking a position more extreme than conservative political appointees in the Reagan Justice Department. …

Meanwhile, some additional documents have proven more elusive. The Post reports today that

A file folder containing papers from Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.’s work on affirmative action more than 20 years ago disappeared from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library after its review by two lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department in July, according to officials at the library and the National Archives and Records Administration.

The Reagan library insists that although they have no proof the file was returned they’re confident it was their mistake, a librarian telling the Post “very difficult to believe it’s anyone other than ourselves responsible for this loss.” Meanwhile, this article published yesterday quotes several anonymous sources saying the Democrats are not planning a big fight over Roberts, and says the “pool of potential outright opponents could be as few as 27 senators, according to the Republican analysis.”