Roberts Was “Prominent Member” of Federalist Society
Roberts Was “Prominent Member” of Federalist Society
John Roberts and the White House are still refusing to explain why Roberts first denied having ties to the right-wing Federalist Society.
Yesterday, Newsweek said “the episode illustrates just how far the Bush administration is going to portray Roberts as an ideological blank slate, in hopes of shielding him from questions about whether he is too conservative from Democrats seeking clues to his judicial philosophy.” The Boston Globe added that the stonewalling has conservative groups “worried that the White House had created a stigma that could attach itself to many leading conservative lawyers.”
Now, today, more evidence of Roberts’ role in the Society. A 7/19/99 report in The Recorder, a daily legal newspaper, refers to Roberts as a “prominent member” of the organization.
Advocates of limiting federal powers and expanding states’ prerogatives cheered this term’s [Supreme Court] federalism rulings, which were issued in a jam-packed, tension-filled courtroom on the justices’ final business day before leaving town for their summer recess.
“The court once again reiterated that states are serious players in our system of government,” said John Roberts Jr., a lawyer with Washington, D.C. ’s Hogan & Hartson and a prominent member of the conservative Federalist Society.
It’s time for Roberts to come clean.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
51 Responses to “Roberts Was “Prominent Member” of Federalist Society”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Depends on the meaning of “prominent”. :-)
July 26th, 2005 at 2:34 pmMaybe it depends on the meaning of “member.” Is anyone surprised that once again we are dealing with sneakiness?
July 26th, 2005 at 2:44 pmOnce again bush’s W.H. has proven it can’t be trusted to be an Open Government for the people by the people.
July 26th, 2005 at 2:52 pmuuuhh,….huh, huh,….he said “member”,
July 26th, 2005 at 3:00 pmGee, this reminds me of when Joe McCarthy probed Hollywood to see if they were members of the Communist party.
Roberts should not take the bait. Proudly say yes, I was a member of the Federalist society. AND liberals should stop it with the judicial McCarthyism. It’s hateful and disgusting.
July 26th, 2005 at 3:08 pmKudos to Butt Head — always love when liberals find ambiguity in terms like “member.” and “is.” and “cigar.” Oh wait — your point was that the Republicans are “sneaky,” right?! Indeed.
July 26th, 2005 at 3:17 pm> AND liberals should stop it with the judicial McCarthyism.
I would say it was up to the Republicans to stop lying about everything. It has become almost as if they can’t stop themselves. The decision to lie about memership in the Federalist society was made by ROBERTS, not any Democrat.
Just like Ted “oh THAT Arkansas Project” Olsen perjured himself. They get away with it so often than it truely seems offensive when they get called on it.
July 26th, 2005 at 3:18 pmAlan - it’s the environment that liberals created. It’s a crime to be a conservative jurist.
Roberts should say he is against Roe and just get it over with. He’ll still get confirmed.
But, Republicans would be wise to ask tougher questions if, by chance, a Democrat ever gets in the WH again.
July 26th, 2005 at 3:22 pmLet me get this straigt NeD, you say republicans should show some backbone, but dems need to roll over and take it.
whatever
July 26th, 2005 at 3:32 pmKranzy - that’s not what I am saying. I agree that Roberts should be more honest. But, Democrats’ judicial McCarthyism needs to be stopped. It what got them into this mess in the first place.
That being said, we shouldn’t be tapping into the SG’s office. Should Roberts be denied a fair vote if he says he wants to overturn Roe?
July 26th, 2005 at 3:37 pmIn response to 10: yes.
Roberts looks to be another, whiter, Gonzales: a yes man for Bush (love them Military tribunals).
If Repubs don’t want his faith to be an issue, stop making it one.
Judicial McCarthyism- now that is laugh.
July 26th, 2005 at 3:50 pmDavid - it’s Catholics like Durbin, Leaky Leahy and Biden that make it an issue.
AND yes - it is judicial McCarthyism. It’s scary, but luckily it’s coming to an end. The Empire is striking back on liberals’ favorite toy - the Supreme Court!! lol!!! We win…. again!
July 26th, 2005 at 3:53 pm> Alan - it’s the environment that liberals
> created. It’s a crime to be a conservative
> jurist.
Oh, right. Right wingers control all three branches of government and all the political media except Air America and one or two columnists and those dirty hateful librulz just keep beating up on them.
The crime dear boy is to even consider appointing a habitual liar to the Supreme Court — liberal or conservative. You are so focused on “winning” you don’t even see the cesspool you’ve shit yourself into. Fine for you I guess but most decent people don’t want to go with you.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:09 pmAlan - but, it’s fine to nominate a LIAR like John Kerry for President. Grow up. If Roberts is a LIAR, Kerry is satan!
July 26th, 2005 at 4:24 pmGee, this reminds me of when Joe McCarthy probed Hollywood to see if they were members of the Communist party.
He said, “probed”. Heh-hehen-heheheh.
Oh, my! Commies in Hollywood! That might really be dangerous!
July 26th, 2005 at 4:35 pmNot sure how the supreme court (mostly put in place by republican presidents) is liberal controlled.
Once again I ask NeD to stop speaking out of his ass and show proof of the supreme court being controlled by liberals. I do mean proof, name a bad decision and show who ruled yes and no and what bias that judge was using.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:41 pmThe Washington Post long ago corrected its erroneous report that Roberts was a dues-paying Federalist. The fact that a third rate reporter made the same mistake, but didn’t correct it, means nothing.
In any event, the Federalist Society is no more nefarious than the ACLU. In fact, it is a good deal LESS nefarious than the ACLU, in that it doesn’t go around filing lawsuits on hot button issues. It’s a conservative debate society, for crying out loud. What’s wrong with that? And if it should develop that Roberts once was a member, SO WHAT?
July 26th, 2005 at 4:44 pmThe Supreme Court struck down a partial birth ban in the name of an “undue burden” against the will of 70% of America. The Court commuted 70 death sentences for vicious teenage murderers, ruled the govt can take your property at will for private use (Kelo), ruled the 10 commandments were offensive in public sphere (no word on whether or not California’s Depart of Justice display is), found a place for affirmative action in the Constitution and sat back while liberals starved Terri Schiavo to death against her family’s will.
That, my friend, is LIBERAL. I don’t expect Kranzy to see that as liberal, but he not’s exactly representative of most people. The Supreme Court is killing Democrats - literally. Think of all the Democrats that get aborted everyday.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:55 pmfor the love of god provide some supporting evidence you nitwit. which judges ruled which way.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:07 pmyou need to stop repeating the liberals control the court lie NeD its pretty obvious that it is not true. remember in the Schiavo Case it was conservative judge ruling against the parents, not some terrible liberal judge legislating from the bench.
its a lie and a fake paradigm pushed onto the American public to push forward the neo-con agenda.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:13 pmKranzy - nice counter talking point - it was a conservative judge. That’s what liberals always say.
KELO case - court’s liberal wing joined by Kennedy
Partial Birth - court’s liberal wing joined by O’Connor
Vicious Teenage murderers - court’s liberal wing joined by Kennedy
10 commandments - court’s liberal wing joined by O’Connor
Affirmative Active - court’s liberal wing joined by O’Connor
GO AHEAD Kranzy and point out that Kennedy and O’Connor were appointed by Republicans. They are still liberal on those issues and given your anti-democracy movement clout. But, don’t worry - there will be no more O’Connors under this President - LOL!!!!
July 26th, 2005 at 5:20 pmI don’t have to point that out you already did. your argument is at best false. the majority of the supreme court has been appointed by conservative presidents. The “liberal wing” has as many judges appointed by conservatives as democrats. Ergo the “liberal wing” really is not.
and it was a conservative judge in Florida who ruled for terry’s husband. It was other judges who upheld that ruling. you know the following the letter of the law and not legislating from the bench.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:27 pmKranzy - fine. AND this Republican President wants to appoint a conservative who may or may not have been involved with the Federalists. Why would that bother you?
And your talking point over the Courts is just that - a talking point. Kennedy is there because you McCarthyists lynched Bork and you almost got away with it with Thomas too. So when Stevens and Ginsberg steps down and Bush appoints “conservatives” to take their place, please don’t cry.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:32 pmI founded the Federalist Society in 1982, just in case it might come in handy some day.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:32 pmWhat’s being lost here is the administration trying to play cover up again. They try to protray Roberts as some sort of moderate, when he is so far to the right, he makes Ann Coulter seem reasonable.
Then Roberts claims he wasn’t a member of the Federalist Party, when he clearly was. If he can’t remember which organizations he has belonged to, how can we trust him with a life time appointment to the highest court in the land?
July 26th, 2005 at 5:35 pmDon’t you get it, Elliott? You can’t trust him! We don’t care if you trust him! We won and you lost, so take your trust and stick it where the Texas sun don’t shine!
July 26th, 2005 at 5:37 pm> you McCarthyists lynched Bork and you almost got away with it with Thomas too.
So it was wrong to question him about his lying about an affair with Anita Hill?
July 26th, 2005 at 5:39 pmI guess you were equally opposed to the Clinton impeachment trial, because that would be hypocricy if you weren’t.
Elliot - #27. Gee, why not Sen. Boxer why she’s a hypocrite. Pubic hair on coke bad, rape good. Get a talking point please.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:42 pmChanging the subject: good republican, you get your health care taken away.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:43 pmElliot - just pointing out there’s enough hypocrisy on Clarence Thomas to go around. Democrats started - Repubicans finished it. AND you’ve been crying ever since!
July 26th, 2005 at 5:47 pmOh I’m crying all right. I’m crying because our country has been hijacked, and people like you are too stupid to see it. Do you honestly think that we are in a better place now than when Clinton was in?
We have alienated all our allies, terrorist recruiting and power is at an all time high, our nations’ freedoms are being limited and taken away, we have a gigantic DEFICIT, not a surplus, and the solution is to cut programs that help fellow citizens so the wealthy can get more wealthy, and brave soldiers are dying in a foreign country because BUSH LIED.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:53 pmElliot… yawn.
I’ll add this - terrorist recruitment seemed ok to me on 9/11. You can pin all your problems on Bush, but that won’t solve them. The hijacking occurred in the 90’s when the MSM and Clinton propogated the LIE that we were invincible. We never were.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:57 pmOh yeah, gas is over $2 a gallon, our energy policies are being written by Big Oil, and this country is more bitterly divided than it has been in a long, long time.
But you ‘won’ - at the expense of the country.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:58 pmThe Clinton Administration warned Bush as he was coming in that Osama was the biggest threat to this country, and Bush took that information and went on vacation
July 26th, 2005 at 5:59 pmElliot - just stop. You’re a moron if you think Clinton cared about terror. He was too busy protecting his ass. He had no authority - no one believed anything he said. At least Bush can say 50% of the country does.
July 26th, 2005 at 6:02 pmQuestion: If John Roberts is such a “prominent memeber” of the Federalist Society, how come the FS is so ashamed of him they haven’t bragged about him yet?
Answer?
July 26th, 2005 at 6:04 pmElliot - just stop. You’re a moron if you think Clinton cared about terror. He was too busy protecting his ass. He had no authority - no one believed anything he said. At least Bush can say 50% of the country does.
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma  July 26, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
Get serious. Both Bill and Hillary are very serious about terror. The Clintons have been terrorizing you for years.
July 26th, 2005 at 6:56 pmI founded the Federalist Society in 1982, just in case it might come in handy some day.
Comment by Karl Rove  July 26, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
And we won’t forget you, Karl. When, not if, you get fired, and if John doesn’t get in under the radar, we have jobs for both of you here, even when you get out of prison, Karl. We can always use a more “attendents” in the mens room.
July 26th, 2005 at 7:01 pmcross-posted for your convenience…
It’s not the membership that matters…
It’s the lying about it.
For Roberts to allow Scotty to claim he didn’t REMEMBER is disingenuous at best and outright deceitful at worst.
It’s like Clarence Thomas claiming that he had never thought about the issue of Roe v. Wade in HIS hearings. Some Senator should have simply said: “Well, sir, if you had told me that you had considered it, but since it might come before you some day, you wish not to answer, that I might accept, and if you had told me it was ‘none of my business’ that I might accept, but if as a lawyer and a scholar and a jurist you are going to tell me that you have never considered one of the most important cases of our time, then I am going to have to call you a liar, and unfit for the Supreme Court.” That’s what a Senator SHOULD have said.
Same with Roberts. He can stand up and say “Yes, I’m a member of this organization, and I’ve been on its steering committee and SO WHAT?” But when he LIES, he shows he’s just like all the other Republicans — lying trash who will say and do anything to get what they want.
It’s not the treason — it’s the lies.
Charlie L
July 26th, 2005 at 7:07 pmPortland, OR
CLL2001@GMail.com
Oh, BTW, NeD, you really are an idiot when you compare Clinton to Bush.
You do realize, that even at the lowest point of his second term, when he was only the second POTUS in HISTORY to be impeached and tried, that his poll ratings were higher than Bush’s are right now? You do realize that, don’t you? You do understand, that most Americans — IN SPITE OF FIVE YEARS OF VAPID MEDIA COVERAGE OF HIS LIES AND DECEITS — believe that Bush lied us into a war? You do GET that, don’t you? NEVER, EVER, EVER in the entire history of the US Presidency and public opinion polls has a President had a lower rating. NOT EVEN ON THE DAY NIXON RESIGNED!!! Not one? What does that tell you about your “popular mandate?” Just curious.
Charlie L
July 26th, 2005 at 7:16 pmPortland, OR
The hijacking occurred in the 90’s when the MSM and Clinton propogated the LIE that we were invincible. We never were.
Faulty timeline aside, it’s true we never were invincible. But it sure was handy having our enemies believe we were. Any military strategist will tell you that.
Even after 9/11, we made short work of Afghanistan which stregnthened the perception that if you attack us we can and will destroy you, quickly and easily. Our little misadventure in Iraq has dispelled that illusion for the whole world to see. Those Pakistani terrorists know we can’t invade them now.
Nice work, “winner.”
July 26th, 2005 at 7:41 pmDead on target, center mass, Cynical Ex-Hippie. The damage these amateur coyboys have done is inestimable.
July 26th, 2005 at 10:14 pmNominee Roberts, would you say that memory is a valuable tool for a jurist?
July 27th, 2005 at 12:30 pmHmm. Yet you don’t recall your decades of being a “prominent member” of the Federalist Society?
Tell me, were you drinking heavily during that period of your life? Using recreational pharmaceuticals?
I have no further questions — or use — for this would be Justice.
As for ” liberals starved Terri Schiavo to death against her family’s will”, it was Terri’s wish
July 27th, 2005 at 2:10 pmto be starved to death, according to her husband.
Her parents disagreed. Does this make them
conservatives?
Actually it was Terri’s wish to not be kept alive with ‘live support’. She made this particular statement to multiple folks, and only her christian conservative parents and siblings disagreed with this approach. They also admitted that even if she ‘had’ said this, they wouldn’t honor it.
As for ’starving to death’, that’s a complete and utter misrepresentation. She had a ‘feeding tube’ inserted into her stomach that artifically fed her in the same way that an IV artificially feeds people. These are forms of life support, and therefore she wasn’t ’starved to death’, she instead was allowed to die naturally instead of being forced to have her body continuing to function even though she had technically ‘died’ years before.
And that’s the next point - human cells can be kept alive for decades, that doesn’t make them alive. What makes a person alive is their brain function - alpha waves in fact. Anyone who doesn’t produce alpha waves is not alive - it’s called brain dead. So no one ’starved terri’, she was already dead. But then again this sort of science and ambiguity often elude the unaware…
And yes her parents are admitted CONservative catholics, and they reject science and its findings unless it suits them in typical CONservative fashion…
July 27th, 2005 at 3:32 pmSo your newest bogeyman is the Federalist Society. OOOOhhhh!
July 27th, 2005 at 8:22 pmLets all be afwaid! What! Roberts may be involved in a Society that agrees with our Founding Fathers! My God! What is this man capable of? What’s that? Are you Libs shaking in your little footsie pajamas? Be afraid, be very afraid.
Comment by Mike D (the incredibly stupid and gullible troll).
So your newest bogeyman is the Federalist Society. OOOOhhhh!
Lets all be afwaid! What! Roberts may be involved in a Society that agrees with our Founding Fathers! My God! What is this man capable of? What’s that? Are you Libs shaking in your little footsie pajamas? Be afraid, be very afraid.
The John Birch Society believes in basically the same things. So does the Ku Klux Klan. The name of an organization and it’s mission statement are just packaging and advertising. Mike, I know you ordered those incredible Sea Monkeys from your favorite comic books, probably just last week, and you didn’t get what was promised, did you? Just add water, right?
July 27th, 2005 at 10:38 pmGrand Drag- Do you know anything about “The Federalist Society?” I’ve read some of your Lib buddies. They’re calling it a “Secret Society.” It so secret you can go to their WEB SITE. Go there and read what their about. That way you won ‘t continue to write like an ass! Boy, they must be loving this free publicity. They must have trolls lining up to join.
July 27th, 2005 at 10:53 pmI’m sure I know more about it than you do. I know you aren’t a lawyer.
July 27th, 2005 at 11:40 pmHey! How are those Sea Monkeys coming along?
July 27th, 2005 at 11:41 pm[…] his Supreme Court nomination hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly sought to distance himself from a connection to the conservative legal group, unwilling to be tarred by its […]
April 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pm