MyDD :: Roberts Was On the Steering Committee of the Federalist Society

Roberts Was On the Steering Committee of the Federalist Society

by Chris Bowers, Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:52:00 AM EST

Of course, his forgetting that he was a member fits with his partisan profile:

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory.

Having served only two years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after a long career as a government and private-sector lawyer, Roberts has not amassed much of a public paper record that would show his judicial philosophy. Working with the Federalist Society would provide some clue of his sympathies. The organization keeps its membership rolls secret, but many key policymakers in the Bush administration are acknowledged current or former members.

Roberts has burnished his legal image carefully. When news organizations have reported his membership in the society, he or others speaking on his behalf have sought corrections. Last week, the White House told news organizations that had reported his membership in the group that he had no memory of belonging. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Associated Press printed corrections.

Over the weekend, The Post obtained a copy of the Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. It lists Roberts, then a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.

I wonder what else he has forgotten. Perhaps he has forgotten that he served a purely political position in the solicitor's general's office. Perhaps he has forgotten that he helped develop the strategy to circumvent the 2000 recount and allow the Florida legislature to give its electoral votes to Bush no matter what the recount found.

These seem to be things that even fellow Democrats are forgetting. This guy is not another David Souter. He is a partisan conservative, and he has been duly rewarded for his service to the Bush family.

He forgot--wtf? This is pretty damning. No wonder the Bush administration is blocking the release of some documents he has written. I hope more Democrats will step up to bat and start opposing this guy.

Tags: Culture (all tags)

Permalink :: 42 Comments :: Post a Comment

Let him on the Court (1.00 / 1)

Look man, I'm about as far to the left as they come. But I don't see why we should try to keep him off the bench just because he is a Republican. First off, we didn't win in 2004, so we don't have the chance to pick the justice. Second, Anna Quindlen wrote a really good article at the back of Newsweek, about how those on the far right, as well as those on the far left, are seeking to politicize the Court. We need to simply nominate qualified individuals who will do their best to interpret the law. I have faith in Justice Roberts to do that, and most people do as well.

by Mike in Chicago on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:00:11 AM EST

Here's a good reason to keep him off (3.00 / 1)

He's 50 years old. 50. That's at least another twenty eyars, possibly thirty or more.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:02:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Really (none / 0)

That wouldn't be a "good reason" to oppose a Democratic S. Ct. nominee, so it's hardly a good to oppose Roberts.

by SLinVA on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

And its not just that he's a Republican--he's an active, partisan Republican. He held a job that was designed to politicize the court--that is what he did at the solictor general's office. If you don't want to politicize the court, keep Roberts off.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:03:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

I agree with you Chris but there is no way Roberts isn't going to get nominated.

Check out Drudge's big headline about Hilary supporting Roberts.

Check out Howard Dean's welcome to pro life candidates.

Its an incredible waste of energy to fight this when our own party turns against us like this....and that includes "walk on water" Howard Dean.

Oh and by the way how about the new Pro War Democrats that we raise so much money for. Anybody give a shit about the death toll these days. I guess I'm a pro lifer on this issue.

What are we going to do about it?

My prediction: fall in line and do what the party says and hope the "new pro life democrats" will outnumber those of us who won't go along to get along.

From: the Politically Homeless

by jd2 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 11:30:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

The anti-Roberts spin of this diary is so extreme as to embarrass its author. The "political deputy" position in the Solicitor General's office also existed when Democrats were in charge, and Roberts had no role in creating the position. It merely added a political appointee to an office that had grown in importance without a corresponding increase in leadership positions. By all accounts, he did nothing to overly politicize the SG's office, and his service there is widely praised. Trying to make an issue of Roberts' SG service is playing to his strength.

by SLinVA on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (3.00 / 1)

Let's ignore Roberts. We live in a little "l" liberal democracy that is structured to protect the minority idea from majoritarian rule. More than race, more than gender and a lot more than economics, the founders structured our system to protect the minority or dissenting opinion. The same is true of free speech and the search and seizure clause. The same is true of the fillabuster and picking Supreme Court justices.

You are not the first Liberal to say that the conservative win in 2004 should end discussion of opposing Roberts. Again, lets forget Roberts for a moment. I hope you don't think that winning an election ends opposition? If so, you are advocating majoritarian rule. There is no other way to read your comment. Let's say we had won last year, both the Presidency and the Senate. Are you saying that if we had won that means that a Democratic President gets to choose Supreme Court justices without regard to the Republicans?

That's not the way the process works. Do you know why Clinton choose a moderate? It's because he was bowing to the Republican conservatives who were not the majority party at the time. This was despite the fact that he had won an election. So, what does that mean?

As I said, there is a reason why we have the fillabuster. It's to protect the rights of the minority party. There is a reason why it's called advise and consent. It's to protect the minority vote from the tyranny of the majority.

Although for this argument it doesn't matter, I should point out that a majority of Americans support our use of the fillabuster where we feel our principles are being compromised in a S. Ct choice. Indeed, a majority of Americans want a moderate on the Court. If you want to look up the polls, they are out there. Perhaps, they get something that I haven't seen in a lot of diaries- that there is an inherit value in moderation. Perhaps, because you are Liberal, and they are Conservatives, you may not understand why the American people really wants neither party to dominate.

There seems to be a double standard that Liberals like you buy into without thinking about it. You are condition to think of your idealogy as bad, while the Republicans spin their idealogy as good. Indeed, if you look at the Clinton, and how the Republicans spun that- moderate was defined as a conservative leaning. They are doing it again with Roberts. He is conservative, therefore moderate. They, in effect, get to consider idealogy while arguing that we as Liberals can not. What exactly is the principled distinction between Republican actions, and Democrats? The only difference really seems to be backbone, unity and messaging.

The only reason the American public hasn't questioned the Roberts nomination is because the Republicans have been spinning since Thursday (see the fluff piece on the Washington Post yesterday for a reference) while the Democrats, as usual are waiting around for an opportunity that may never come. I had this discussion last week over at D Kos. People there want to remain focused on Rove. As you can see from the chart on the front page of this blog, the MSM doesn't necessarily follow what we want to keep as the main story.

I want to be clear. This goes beyond Roberts. This goes to how you view government. Specifically, about Roberts affiliation with the Federalists Society. It is absolutely crucial that we do research into what Roberts has written and said. Not just in judicial opinion, but according to my friend who works on these issues, we should also be looking at speeches and papers outside of the judiciary. He correctly predicted weeks ago that Bush would choose a blank slate and the Democratic response. He also correctly predicted it would be someone nice, but who has some pretty vile beliefs if you scratch below the surface. So, let me ask you- what are you talkin about giving up on? Indeed, someon yesterday pointed out to me that Bork and Bolton were considered done deals early i n their processes as well by a lot of people. The reason why they were wounded, and in the case of Bork, taken out of the game, was because of a few dedicated people.

Also, the value of defeating this nomination through fillabuster to us politically so long as we spin it right can not be overstated. After Schiavo, after SS and with Iraq continuing the American people are looking for some signs that we are in opposition to the Republican party. I don't think we should be putting out our own agenda until the fall of 2006, but right now this is something we can do, that even if we lose, can define us as the party of moderation. To do that however requires acting in a concerted effort. In that sense, I do agree we may have to "let him on the Court" because folks like you don't see the value of losing a battle to win a war.

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:29:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

To a certain extent this is true, and
to a larger extent, false.

Senators are supposed to be able to operate
on their own recognizance. Presidents
are elected to appoint these people,
you have essentially a government with +some+
limited executive powers here .. and
setting up a supreme court is their domain.

Americans can lobby for their opposition but
in my experience its been only the oddballs
that get bounced out. It would appear bush
has chosen a semi-moderate.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:36:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

With respect, your experience is wrong. Look up the history on judicial nominations to the S Ct. They may not have all been fillabustered, but that was because choosing them was full of politics before we got to that point. We have a President with whom that maybe the only choice for responding to his actions.

The reality is that it may not happen. But, that's because we have a neutered Democratic Party where a lot of Senators are responding according to their individual poltical ambitions rather than the good of the party. It may already be too late because of the perception game that we lost almost immediately because we remain a reactive adverse to risk rather than proactive taking on calculated risk party.

In a business sense, the reason why we as a party continue to struggle is the same reason why a small enterprise that acts the same way would continue to struggle. Here's a line that we should have used, but because we didn't shows a lot about us: We retain the right to fillabuster Pres. Bush's nominee to the S Ct because Pres Bush has shown himself to be untrustworthy. We cite his continue reliance of Karl Rove as an example of why we must give this nomination serious scrutiny. I am not smart enough to have come up with the line. I got it from someone over at D kos, but it shows that our poltical leadership isn't as smart at they need to be. On all elements the lines would reflect where the polls suggest the American people were at when Bush nominated this guy. Instead, a lot of this is due each Democratic Senators personal relationship with Roberts rather than what is good for the party. It's like watching the poltical talk shows where you just know the Republican talking head and the Democratic talking head go out for lunch after the Republican talking head takes the Democrati to school. Our Senators like this guy. If the reverse were true, and the Republicans could produce serious political capital for linking the two issues, I doubt Frist or DeLay would have any problems using it. I think it's really the difference between a party that is hungry enough to want power, and another that is still stuck in the power it used to retain and reacts according to what used to be the case rather than where we are now.

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Three Fundamental Misunderstandings (none / 0)

(1) There are three co-equal branches of government. Allowing the executive free reign to appoint judges would make the judiciary subservient to the executive, notr co-equal. That's why the advice and consent of the Senate is anything but a mere formality. This goes to the very heart of the separation of powers, which is a central feature of the architecture of our government as a liberal democracy.

(2) Historically, the challenging of judges involves a wide degree of lattitude. Generally, over the past 30 years or so, Democrats have been extremely timid, while Republicans have been recklessly irresponsible. This can be seen in the high number of Clinton nominees who didn't even get committee hearings, much less floor votes. (See any pattern here?) But there's no reason the Democrats should continue with their timid ways, other than cowardice and habit.

(3) Roberts is not a semi-moderate. He is demonstrably to the right of O'Connoer, who is a solid (though not rabid) conservative. She could be plausibly described as a "semi-moderate." Roberts cannot. His statement to Durbin's question during his confirmation hearing for his current post, that the current Supreme Court is not a conservative court, indicates that he may well be to the right of Scalia and Thomas.

Because he's not been a law professor, he has "I was only following orders" plausible deniability on most of his writings. But his off-point interjection that Roe was wrongly decided, in a case that had nothing to do with challenging Roe is indicative of ideological zealotry, as well as poor judgment incompatible with judicial temperament.

In short, your "semi-moderate" assessment is based on sipping the rightwing kool-aid. It's not based on examining the evidence already available, much less digging deep to gain a full record of who Roberts actually is.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

Nice piece of writing! I don't necessarily agree with all you say, but you bring up some great points that give cause to think about. I am not in favor of using the filibuster unless absolutely necessary. The consitution does not guarentee it to exist. From my research, while filibustering was done in the 1800's, it wasn't until the early 1900's that it was used the way it is used now (as a method of warfare.) So while I 100% agree with the founding fathers' system of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, the filibuster was never included in the constitution and at the time, was probably not meant to be used in the way it currently is by both parties.

My biggest issue with filibustering Roberts, is many people on here said on the first day... Filibuster, Filibuster, Filibuster. This seemed to be in response that he wasn't another O'Connor. I think that is a dangerous mentality to have. I am in agreement that Rove is the better battle to fight, but apprently that is not going to happen as the MSM senses a fight here and that will sell more papers. Whether Bush and Co have sucessfully Wagged the Dog remains to be seen. I hope we don't hear about Fitzgerald dismissing charges, etc.

Even though I am in favor of our leadership fighting the battle about Rove, I am still in favor of digging dirt and finding info. We need to do our due diligence (sorry couldn't resist)on this. But we should not PUBLICALLY go into this debate with the notion we are going to filibuster, UNTIL research is done. Fight for what we believe? Absolutely... but to suggest (not saying you are Bruh21) that we immediately kick Roberts out is a dangerous attitude.

I wrote my first diary on the subject the day after the nomination. While my writing is not particulary good and not worth of promotion, I was a bit disappointed that Chris or Jerome never promoted any of the diaries (and there were many) calling to let Robert's get promoted or to concentrate on Rove or to at least give Roberts a fair chance while we researched him out. Even if they disagreed with the viewpoints expressed, it would be nice to see them publish opposing viewpoints along with ones that agree with in an effort to truly foster debate (provided it is not the ignorant few who keep shouting F$^# You and You're an idiot whenever you give an opinion they disagree with...luckily, there are only a few people like this on MyDD who do it on a regular basis). This not only helps to refine ones debate on a subject by understanding both sides of the coin, but also helps to distinguish us from the Theo and Neo Cons, who want to stamp down any discussion on an issue and force one to their beliefs (The old "Freedom is Slavery" line). I agree our party needs to take hard lines and should fight for our beliefs, but we also should respect others in the party opposite beliefs and listen to their opinions... as long as they respect ours... something the DLC did not do for years and has obviously cost us.

Has my opinion changed on Roberts? Yes it has... although not to the point I would call a filibuster. Two things have happened recently to really start considering supporting one however... his lying about the Federalist Society is disturbing... Him being on it is bad, however, I have a feeling a few of our justices have been members. But lying about it is the wrong thing for a judge to do. It exposes the pure politician and those are always bad on the bench.

The more disturbing thing (although it is par for the course with this administration) is that they won't release his memos. Those to me are critical to understanding his thinking. If they continue to refuse, I would like to see the Dems say they will filibuster until they can view those papers. They should be public info anyhow as long as they aren't national security (although W would brand any report making him look bad as national security).

All I know is that he should be grilled during any hearings. If he refuses to answer, he should be filibustered.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:53:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

Just a note from TIME magazine. Despite what the GOP claims, there is precedent in the filibustering of judges. I can't remember if this came up in earlier discussions about the appeals judges or not.

In 1968, Republicans and Southern Democrats filibustered Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson's nominee to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren. Fortas, who was considered too liberal by many in the Senate, was eventually withdrawn from consideration for the leadership post.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

With respect, as I pointed out above- you, like so most of the left, are extraoradinarily short sighted. There are only a fix number of ways this could have come out. It really just depended on the political landscape, and if the Democrats were reacting as a party in opposition w/ the knowlege of what the poll numbers say rather than still thinking of itself as the party in power it would have been easy to figure out the tactics for this situation. I give you an example: We (Democrats) can not trust Pres Bush's nomination to the S Ct because Pres Bush has shown himself to be untrustworthy on other appointees such as those of Karl Rove. A man known to be be unethical. In other words, the stories could have been linked. We still do not know what Fitzgerald will say. The smartest action would be to poltical hay of it and use it for the larger narrative, if we had one, rather than desperate actors, while we can. In fact, the value of the Robe story was that it should be used for a larger narrative. Instead, because we aren't acting proactively it's simply about a cast of characters rather than Pres Bush's judgement, and it's not about the Republican leadership in general. Next year when they run, the Democrats need to be running against a larger narrative about the Republicans rather than just against individual candidates, because the Democrats almost certainly will be running against a larger narrative. Notice, that no matter what the facts are we are always the extreme left. I see every Republican head repeat that meme. What does that even mean in modern America where everyone including me is basically some variation of capitalism. My statement about Rove would have been an example of a calculated risk designed to take control of the the story rather than have the story be dictated to us.

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:43:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

one further point- the reason why my sentence above would have produced political hay is because of a margin of 75 to 25 the American people don't trust Bush on that issue. Linking it for them in their mind would not have played well inside the beltway (but then the beltway misjudged Shiavo and SS), but it's the same kind of connection that people correctly make all the time. For example, if your boss at work made a bad judgement, and he or she is asking you to trust him or hger on the next leadership choice that he or she makes, you may go with it, but you will be more leary because you will link the bad incident with the new thing he or she is asking you to do. Americans are too busy to make that link with Bush, so we should have made it for them. In other words, if the goal had been to affect the pscyhology, and would become to affect the psychology of the American people, there are ways to do this.

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Need For A Narrative (none / 0)

Of the many excellent points that bruh21 has made in different comments in this diary, the most important one, arguably, is the need for a narrative.

This should be fairly simple for us. They are the party of wealth and privilege, we are the party of liberty and justice for all. We ought to be able to translate this fundamental truth into a compelling narrative about what America has been, how it has grown by embracing our ideals, and how it can grow even more in the century ahead.

Part of the problem is that we have too much wealth and privilege dominating our own party--and too fuzzy a recognition of this among the grassroots. (I'm not saying that everyone with money is bad. John Corzine, George Soros, and many other millionaires and multi-millionaires are well aware that a just society is something more precious than gold. It's not about the individuals, it's about the systems of corruption and belief.) We must be willing to define our politics for ourselves--from the grassroots on up, not from the top down. This is precisely what Howard Dean's campaign was all about, and it's the key to taking back our country by taking back our party. Crafting a narrative that speaks to a broad majority of people is an integral part of that process.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

Um, actually I am not short sighted.

http://yitbos96bb.mydd.com/story/2005/7/20/112432/197

If you go read the above diary, I wrote a long one detailing a similiar thing saying that I felt that fighting Roberts was not as important as hitting on the Rove thing Over and Over. I went as far as to say Reid should come out saying that they will do their due diligence on Roberts, but at first glance he doesn't see a need to filibuster. Then in the next sentence say he is calling for a senate hearing into the possibility of the WH lying about the Rove issue and that Rove betrayed her trust. Even if it never happened due to GOP interferrence.

Truthfully, your post came off a little different than what your response did. From your post, I was under the impression you were in favor of fighting ROberts truth and nail and filibustering him for any reason. Maybe I misunderstood; maybe the post could have made your point clearer.

Either way, from your response it sounds like we agree that Rove and the blanket dishonesty and corruption of the GOP are the most important thing to be stressing right now. But maybe i am again misunderstanding you. Please let em know.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

My point is that it's not either or- it's about linking the narratives. For example, linking Rove, Schiavo and all the other issues to this nomination, and anything else the Republicans attempt do. I don't really understand your confusion. What's so complicated about understanding that people's actions tell us something about how they will act in other situations. That because of Shiavo, Iraq, Rove and a multitude other individual stories that we can create a narrative calling into question Bush's judgement, and by proxy Roberts. By openning the door, we then get to add other things. We get to ask Roberts what he thinks of the judges decisions in Shiavo for example. It's all about creating a narrative that the American people understand. And, one that we can't lose. Either Roberts doesn't answer, in which case we can spin to hurt the conservative base or he does in which case we can spin to say to the American people- this is what the REpublican leadership is all about. It's all in how you approach the facts. Either you sit around as a lot of people seem to do on the left and moan about it or you use it to win.

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:16:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

Incidentally, there is a huge amount of separate stories right now that should be weaved into one narrative that is not being weaves into that narrative: coingate, DeLay, Shiavo, SS, Rove, Iraq need to be weaved into one compelling narrative

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:46:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let him on the Court (none / 0)

The fact is that we lost in 2004. Opposition doesn't end there, but it does mean that we're not going to get a nominee who adheres to our values. Sorry, that's how it works. Unless you have serious qualms about letting Roberts on the Court, you shouldn't try to derail his nomination. The fact that he doesn't hold your political views is not a good enough reason.

by Mike in Chicago on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Liar (3.00 / 2)

Forget Roberts' record. It's bad, but that isn't the point. Right now, the most important point is that Roberts is a liar. He's repeatedly said he didn't belong to the Federalist Society. And now here's the proof that he did. That's a lie.

Even if Team W wants to get cute and say that Roberts merely said that he doesn't remember being a member of the Federalist Society, that's still cause for concern. Shouldn't a young man being nominated to the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment remember being a member of an organization merely six or seven years ago?

So either Roberts is a liar or he's unable to recall relatively important facts about his life. Either way, that would indicate to me that he's not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.

by Scott Shields on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:35:58 AM EST

Re: Liar (none / 0)

Great point... The lying thing does not sit well with me at all.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:22:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Liar (none / 0)

I feel like I'm reading Eugene McCarthy.

I guess, the essence of this is - he's
supposed to stand up and confess his
membership?

Well, ok fine. But just this nagging thing
about my kids still in danger after
we spend 2 trillion dollars supposedly
to upgrade homeland sec.

its just that treason rubs me the wrong
way so bad..

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:52:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you mean Joe McCarthy (none / 0)

Joe McCarthy was a right wing Republican Senator who claimed communists were everywhere in the Army and State Department.

Eugene Mccarthy was a left wing Democratic Senator who ran for President (in the primaries) on an anti-VietNam war platform.

by antiHyde on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This deal is done, Chris. (none / 0)

Dems can oppose him but the centrist coalition
has nodded assent so the confirmation is finished.
There will be no filibuster, that is the only
tool the dems have to stop the nomination.

So spare me. Moveon made a mistake on this one.
knee jerk partisanship.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:52:39 AM EST

Re: This deal is done, Chris. (none / 0)

the deal is done in the same way that the bolton nomination was done?

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:29:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This deal is done, Chris. (none / 0)

I stand corrected. Good point. As an independent, I have to say that yes, I'd like to see documents
as well.

I guess the thing is, for my focus I'm just too concerned about the fact that we have a traitor in the white house and that the US Government seems to
be unofficially in the business of providing
materiel to Mr. Michael Moore for really
embarassing movies about us..

Lets stop the subsidy on stupidity.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:32:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This deal is done, Chris. (none / 0)

Funny that you say that, he is doing a follow up to Farenheit 9/11, that is set to premier after Bush leaves or during the 2008 campaign. Should be good.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:56:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This deal is done, Chris. (3.00 / 0)

And, for those of us with longer memories, the way the deal was done for John Tower back in Bush I.

"Conventional wisdom" is all convention and no wisdom. That was the whole point of the coinage by John Kenneth Galbraith. And he coined the term before Vietnam escalated into nightmare status.

Newsflash: There has never been a Supreme Court nomination since the internet took off as a source of political news and focus of political organizing. No one has the foggiest notion of what this could mean. No one, including me. It's a wild card. And wild cards change all the odds.

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:25:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This deal is done, Chris. (none / 0)

That may be the best point made today.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This deal is done, Chris. (none / 0)

It is not the same as Bolton who everyone knew was a n undiplomatic ideolouge to begin with. Even Republicans didn't like Bolton. Roberts is very different. Now that HRC has sided with the moderate Dems and Republicans, it is over barring some shocking revalation. The Federalist Society is not what a reasable person considers a shocking revelation.

by Christopher Hitchens on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:55:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This deal is done, Chris. (none / 0)

Your comparison is wrong. My thesis is that Robert is similar to Bolton because going into the early part of the process, the naysayers like you, were saying that Bolton could not be challenged. No one would fight his nomination. You are once again playing that game by saying one week after Roberts nomation, before research has sufficiently been done, before any real debate on the issues, that Roberts is already going to be a Justice. It's the sense of inevitability that the Republicans, and apparently you want people to believe. It was the same approach last year with Bush. No one early on thought Kerry would come close much less only lose by 3 percentage points in late 2003. In that sense, it is exactly the same situations. You haven't done anything other than throw your hands up in the air to say "oh well." That's not a strategy, it's capitulation. You may be right. He may not be stoppable. But deciding that now, and without researching the man's speeches at the Federalist Society or any of his other prior actions is creating an outcome by believing in conventional wisdom rather than any common sense pratical consideration.

by bruh21 on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

His memory's as good... (none / 0)

...as John Bolton's re: whether he gave grand jury testimony on Plame's outing by Rove and Novak.

...as Kenny Boy Lay's re: Enron board meetings he led.

...as Dick Cheney re: meeting John Edwards.

Feel free to add your own examples.

Republicans: can't be trusted to remember anything; can't be trusted with anyone else's money.

by bartkid on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:08:46 AM EST

Re: His memory's as good... (none / 0)

you may have a point there, with this GOP
- biggest spenders in the history of our
country. Burning through cash like it
wasn't even there.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:33:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His memory's as good... (none / 0)

Why save now when you can let your great grandchildren worry about the bills? It is just sickening.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what the meaning of "member" is (none / 0)

This is a very important issue, because it speaks to the way the Republicans have taken over and run the country. Not by openly debating their ideas but by trying to take over control of the rules of the debate itself; the judiciary used to be non-partisan, in the sense that no one on the bench was really thought to be partisan. A judge might have values and a judicial philosophy or temperment but not an allegiance to a political party or activist group.

The fact that Roberst not only belonged to but served as an officer in a secretive, conservative society that promotes its own for judicial appointments - then lied about his membership when it was politically convenient to do so -- suggests that now more than ever, we need to ask him, is his allegiance to the Constitution of the US or to the REpublican party?

by desmoulins on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:11:08 PM EST

forgot to add (none / 0)

Implied in my first paragraph above should have been that it gets to how the Republicans operate and not to any one specific court decision or issue -- but to his approach to the law, the courts and the country.

by desmoulins on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:12:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do we really need to know any more than this? (none / 0)

Roberts is a complete tool

by bill l on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:52:23 PM EST

I Smell...I Smell Bolton (3.00 / 1)

This is just like Bolton with the showdown over the documents. The question is if another conscietious objector like Voinovich pops up among the Republicans. Moreover, Bolton and Roberts worked (to my understanding) almost side-by-side in the Florida recount. Bush just figures he can be provocative with his non-judicial appointments because he thinks it doesn't matter.

This whole lie about the Federalist Society is pretty intriguing. The coordinator for Bush's judicial nominations, Lee Lieberman Otis, actually organized the initial Fedie symposium at Yale in 1982 (though the origins go further back than that for the group). Roberts himself likely did not join in law school (he's too old) but suffice to say that Lieberman Otis has the Rolodex when it comes to who are the most faithful adherents to appoint. (She received a lot of grief for Souter but rebounded nicely with Thomas.) Still, you wonder why lie about it? Who is this guy, Karl Rove?

Lastly, the Hedgepeth case tells you all you need to know about this guy. He believes that there is no implied freedom of movement under the Bill of Rights if there's a suspicion of a crime. Or in other words, he thinks that people suspected of crimes have the right to be held indefinitely. True, it's not the same as saying we ought to bomb the UN...but the idea of unlimited detention is sort of scary.

by risenmessiah on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:30:24 PM EST

Dunno, Chris (none / 0)

When you are operating at a very high professional level you don't always know what you are a member or an officer of. Wife or Secretary sends in the check, you don't know. Or you are asked to be a member of the board or an officer on a name use basis only...no actual work.

There are a lot of them and it's easy to lose track. I've got stuff on my vita I don't recall, either.

You're nobody...until you've been banned at dkos because you had an original thought or spoke truth to power.

by NorCalJim on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 07:01:10 PM EST

Much Ado About ?? (none / 0)

Membership in the Federalist Society would hardly be a smoking gun. It's an organization of conservative & libertarian lawyers & law students, but it doesn't take positions on issues or candidates. It conducts forums/seminars/debates on legal issues of interest, and most reports I've seen indicate that a variety of positions are usually presented at its events. Roberts could have been a speaker at the Society's events without formally joining, and there are reports that the steering committee designation was just an honorary title. No matter how hard this is spun, it's not nearly the story that some are making it out to be.

by SLinVA on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 09:27:09 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.