MyDD :: Ask Roberts a Question

Ask Roberts a Question

by Chris Bowers, Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 10:55:42 PM EST

A diverse group of Democratic Senators has created a page where you can submit a question for Judge Roberts during his Senate hearing:

As Senators, we believe it shouldn't only be Senators that get to ask the questions this time around. We want the American people to have a voice. We want to know what you care about the most. Help us let the Judiciary Committee know the questions that are on every American's mind.

Thank you for your help!

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Patty Murray, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Sen. Maria Cantwell, Sen. Hillary Clinton

That group really runs the ideological gambit in the Democratic Party. I just submitted the following question:

Judge Roberts, you have repeatedly denied being a member of the Federalist Society. However, documents uncovered by the Washington Post show that you were a member of the steering committee of the Federalist Society only seven years ago. I can only see three possible ways to clarify this discrepancy. First, the documents uncovered by the Post could be inaccurate and / or forgeries. Second, every time you were asked, you simply forgot that only seven years ago you were a member of the steering committee of the most prominent conservative legal organization in America. Third, you were not telling the truth when you said you were never a member. Now, I ask you, which one of these three scenarios is the correct explanation?

Your turn.

Tags: Culture (all tags)

Permalink :: 19 Comments :: Post a Comment

Nice (none / 0)

I couldn't have said it better.

Too bad it won't be answered, if asked.

by Tod Westlake on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:56:56 PM EST

Softball Question (none / 0)

None of the Senators participating in this endeavor are on the Judiciary Committee, so I'm not sure how serious a venture this is. When are they going to ask those questions?

Also, I don't think the "Are you now or have you ever been" line will work with the Federalist Society. It's a glorified debating society that doesn't take positions on candidates, legislation or issues & doesn't lobby. Its members run the gamut of conservative and libertarian thought. A quick glance at its website show a long list of Democrats & liberals have spoken at its functions, including:

Justice Stephen Breyer (while on 1st Cir.)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (while on D.C. Cir.)
Griffin Bell, Attny. Gen., Carter Admin.
Lloyd Cutler, WH Counsel to Carter & Clinton
Abner Mikva, WH Counsel to Clinton
Bernard Nussbaum, WH Counsel to Clinton
John Podesta, Dep. Chief of Staff to Clinton
Norma Cantu, Asst. Sec., Civil Rights, U.S. Dept. of Ed., Clinton Administration
Walter Dellinger, Solicitor General under Clinton
William Marshall, Assoc. WH Counsel to Clinton
Randy Moss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of Legal Counsel under Clinton
Beth Nolan, Assoc. WH Counsel to Clinton
Michael Dukakis, Former Governor, Massachusetts
Barney Frank, House of Representatives (D-MA)
Eugene McCarthy, U.S. Senate (D-MN)
Guido Calabresi, U. S. Court of Appeals, 2d Cir.
Steve Reinhardt, U. S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir.
Pat Wald, U. S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Cir.
Scott Harshbarger, Atty. Gen., Mass.
Hubert Humphrey III, Atty. Gen., Minn.
Elliott Spitzer, Atty. Gen, NY
Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, FTC
Willie Brown, Mayor, San Francisco
Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky, UCLA Law School
Professor Jamin Raskin, American Univ. & former General Counsel, National Rainbow Coalition
Prof. Cass Sunstein, Univ. of Chicago Law School
Prof. Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School
Prof. Nadine Strossen, President, ACLU
Vivian Berger, ACLU Counsel & Columbia Law School
Alvin Bronstein, ACLU Prison Project
Harvey Grossman, Legal Director, Illinois ACLU
Morton Halperin, past ACLU Washington Director
Laura Murphy, ACLU, Washington Office
Ramona Ripsten, Los Angeles ACLU
Steve Shapiro, General Counsel, ACLU
Art Spitzer, ACLU
Larry Gold, AFL-CIO
Damon Silvers, AFL-CIO
Nan Aron, Exec. Dir., Alliance for Justice
Julius Chambers, NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Charles Drayden, NAACP Counsel
Clyde Murphy, Dep. Dir., NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Patricia Ireland, National Organization for Women
Marcia Greenburger, National Women's Law Center
Elliott Mincberg, People for the American Way
Anthony Podesta, People for the American Way
Ralph Nader, Public Citizen Litigation Group
Alan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation Group
David Vladeck, Public Citizen Litigation Group
Brian Wolfman, Public Citizen Litigation Group
Nat Hentoff, The Village Voice

I don't think folks of this caliber make it a habit to appear before extremist organizations. Some reports indicate that the steering committee designation was merely an honorific title handed out by the DC chapter without regard to actual membership. There's a lot of potential for people making a big deal of this to be left with egg on their face.

by SLinVA on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:59:16 PM EST

As you may have noticed (none / 0)

The question I asked had nothing to do with whether or not the Federalist Society was a positive entity or not. It was directed entirely as to why he denied he was a member when, in fact, it appears he was a member.

Its not the membership, its the lying about the membership.

And you still haven't apologized for calling me a hypocrite. To say that my post was hypocritcal, and then say that you weren't referring to me, but to others, is nonsense. I don't speak for everyone on MyDD, which should have been obvious to you since I clearly don't speak for you and yet you post here. MyDD does not equal Chris Bowers. I have never said that it was wrong for Republicans to try and enforce party discipline on important votes--in fact I have repeatedly said exactly the opposite, and with admiration for their success in so doing. Just because other people here hold a different opinion did not make what I said hypocritical.

But then again, you seem more intent on rabidly defending Roberts than anythign else, so I don't see why you would care.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:43:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As you may have noticed (none / 0)

The assumption that Roberts lied about the Federalist Society membership may turn out to be incorrect, thereby leaving those who made the accusation in an awkward postion. As I noted, there are reports that the DC Chapter's steering committe was an honorific designation, rather than something like a board of directors, and that membership wasn't a prerequistie for that designation. Even if he was a member at one time, that may, depending on the circumstance, only show that he was mistaken which is not the same as lying.

A number of top notch Democratic lawyers think quite highly of Roberts, and I think folks should give some thought to the arguments being used against him. Would many here make a big deal about a Democratic nominee who failed to list an ACLU membership on a form? I have my doubts.

Bush won the election and will nominate a conservative to the Court. IMHO, the best strategy would be to accept Roberts and try to draw the line so that the next S. Ct. appointee was no worse. Supporting Roberts would give some cover even if the arguments against the next nominee weren't all that strong.

Some of the arguments against Roberts distort the cases he was involved in so that they are almost unrecognizable, and I've pointed that out a few times. While that's not the issue in this thread, I think Democrats would look silly knocking Roberts on cases he won or when he ruled in the majority. There have even been posts (not sure if it was here or Kos) peddling an interest group list that included a unanimous Roberts ruling on a panel with 2 Democratic judges that affirmed a Democratic District Court judge. Using weak arguments against Roberts just lessens the credibility of the critics, thereby making it easier for Bush to go further right next time. For that reason, when all is said and done I think it's likely the Federalist Society issue will not serve Roberts critics well.

FWIW, as was made clear on the other thread, no one called you a hypocrite.

by SLinVA on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 01:56:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As you may have noticed (none / 0)

"The assumption that Roberts lied about the Federalist Society membership may turn out to be incorrect, thereby leaving those who made the accusation in an awkward postion."

Lying was one of three possibilities in my question. He could simply answer "as far as I know, the documents are accurate, but it was merely an honory position that I was not informed of," and the issue would go away.

"Would many here make a big deal about a Democratic nominee who failed to list an ACLU membership on a form? I have my doubts."

Youa re right ot have your doubts, because this isn't a general discussion site. It is a partisan Democratic site. As such, our discourse should nto be expected to be even-handed or objective. It always perplexes me when someone accuses an overtly partisan Dmeocratic site of being overtly partisan and Democratic.

"Bush won the election and will nominate a conservative to the Court"

I don't care. This isn't a site where we roll over and play dead.

"IMHO, the best strategy would be to accept Roberts and try to draw the line so that the next S. Ct. appointee was no worse. Supporting Roberts would give some cover even if the arguments against the next nominee weren't all that strong. "

Since in your entire comment history, I have never seen you oppose anything the Bush administration has ever done, I won't be taking your adivce. It is hard for me to believe that you actually have any interest in doing so, and thus that your advice would actually stop anything he does.

"For that reason, when all is said and done I think it's likely the Federalist Society issue will not serve Roberts critics well."

"FWIW, as was made clear on the other thread, no one called you a hypocrite."

That's right, it was all hypothetical.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 02:18:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've noticed that your humble opinion... (none / 0)

... doesn;t really differ from Bush's not-so-humble opinion, and all the 'advice' you give is to bend over and take what the GOP wants to give.

So please... let's hear the sage advice you have about how to advance a non-GOP agenda.

I'm really VERY interested.

McCain sucks!

by teknofyl on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:30:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As you may have noticed (none / 0)

I have to say Chris, I agree.

What's troublesome it's annoucing he's a member of the Federalist Society. Nearly every Republican judicial power broker is. The question is, why did Roberts pretend to act as if he was not a member. What's the danger of association.

by risenmessiah on Sat Jul 30, 2005 at 02:06:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Expanding on Privacy (none / 0)

I asked the usual "do we have a right to privacy" question, but added - do we have a right to control our own bodies as our personal property like other property rights (paraphrasing)? We're pretty clear that most right-wingers see real estate, business, etc., as personal property that shouldn't be regulated by the state. But those same property rights folks don't see one's own body as one's own property that should be free from government regulation.

I hope this or some similar question is asked. It would be interesting to see how it is answered.

by maryschoyc on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:07:28 AM EST

Question for Roberts: (none / 0)

Do you really expect anyone to believe that you can't remember belonging to the ultra-conservative Federalist Society or being on its steering committee?

Follow up: If your answer is "yes," do you think anyone with such obviously impaired mental capabilities is qualified to preside over a traffic court, much less sit on the highest court in the land for life?

by Guy on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 01:15:28 AM EST

this one will come up, might as well ask it (none / 0)

mr. roberts, do you believe that the president, in times of war or emergency, has the right to ignore, subvert or suspend aspects of the constitution, or overrule decisions by the legislative or judicial branches of government, in "defense of the country"?what is your opinion on the separation and the balance of powers enumerated in the constitution?

by wu ming on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 03:27:05 AM EST

Re: this one will come up, might as well ask it (none / 0)

Would this include outting covert agents for political purposes?

by pipe on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 11:47:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is sad and lame (none / 0)

This is not just a "woman's" issue... where the hell is the rest of the Democratic Party???

Does this mean when the Voting Rights Act comes up for renewal it will only be a Black thing...

It reminds me of being in school (high school and college) when the administrators seemed to never be able to find appropriate minorities candidates they alwaya left it up to the minority students to "search".

Sorry but this sucks and is a pathetic showing of our party.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 06:24:37 AM EST

Roberts nomination (3.00 / 0)

Josh Marshall had a good question up on his site a couple of days ago:

"I'm wondering what the argument is, precisely, for the White House having access to any more information in the process of nominating Roberts than the Senate should have in confirming him."

by global yokel on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 11:51:35 AM EST

What is a person. (3.00 / 1)

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced before the court even took oral argument: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Thus, the court extended the constitutional concept of person to non-humans. Do you think this decision is consistent with the concept of person at the time the constitution was written by the framers and, if so, does this mean the constitution's concept of person also includes a fetus and, if so, to what degree?

by dicta on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:03:50 PM EST

War on Terror (none / 0)

Judge Roberts, America is engaged in a war against radical terrorism. Do you believe an American citizen who is accused of planning terrorist attacks on American soil should be provided a speedy trial by jury in accordinace with the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution or treated as an "enemy combatant" who is unprotected by the Constitution?

by owenz on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:11:25 PM EST

War on Terror II (none / 0)

Judge Roberts, do you believe the President of the United States has the authority to contravene federal law such as the War Crimes Act or the Anti-Torture Act by executive order during times of war?

Must the President adhere to international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions during times of war?

by owenz on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 12:18:06 PM EST

Executive Privelege and Voting Rights (none / 0)

Executive Privilege:

Judge Roberts, what limits, if any do you see on the use of Executive Privilege to keep secret the names of advisory groups formed to guide national policy?

In a related question, which, in your opinion, takes precedence, the ability of our citizenry to know who is promoting policy and how, or the ability of the Executive or Legislative Branches to keep such information secret?

Finally, to what extent, if any should an Administration be held responsible for leaks that cause demonstrable threats to national security?

Voting Rights:

What obligation, if any, do you see on the part of the Federal Government to ensure that elections to Federal office are conducted fairly and in a manner that maximizes the ability of voters to gain timely access to accurate and verifiable means of voting?

by Mudshark on Fri Jul 29, 2005 at 02:14:53 PM EST

One more (none / 0)

Judge Roberts, would you limit the commerce clause for the Endangered Species Act to cover only those species who migrate, or would you include those species that do not migrate, but which may attract the interest of out-of-state observers (scientists, conservationists, etc.)?

The latter, broader interpretation is the one that has traditionally been applied to the ESA, and one that Roberts appeared to reject on the D.C. Circuit.

by rayspace on Sun Jul 31, 2005 at 01:36:36 AM EST

dgfdgfd (none / 0)

各地机票预定电话
北京机票：福州机票：
010-89590599(国内)
上海机票：深圳机票：
021-52385605
广州机票：西安机票：
020-38828892(国内)
长沙机票：青岛机票：
0731-4449549
成都机票：昆明机票：
028-85563048(国内)
杭州机票：
0571-56180877
武汉机票：
027-51518151(国内)
大连机票：
0411-88821866
南京机票：
025-86081380(国内)
厦门机票：
0592-5161000

by llalx on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 09:56:15 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.