John Roberts Does Not Belong To The Federalist Society:
The Washington Post reports:
Everyone knows that, like all good Republican lawyers, John G. Roberts Jr. is a member of the Federalist Society, the conservative law and public policy organization where right-of-center types meet to denounce liberalism and angle for jobs in the Bush administration.This part of the story is particularly funny:
And practically everyone — CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Legal Times and, just yesterday, The Washington Post — has reported Roberts's membership as a fact. One liberal group opposed to Roberts's nomination, the Alliance for Justice, has noted it on its Web site.
But they are wrong. John Roberts is not, in fact, a member of the Federalist Society, and he says he never has been.
Upon reflection, some Federalist Society members conceded that they had never actually seen Roberts at meet-and-greets such as the society's annual black-tie dinner.Hat tip: ACSBlog.
"That's a good question, let me think. Now that you mention it — no," was former Bush Justice Department official Viet Dinh's response when asked if he had ever spotted Roberts at any Federalist events.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Were the votes of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer in NOW v. Scheidler
- Many John Roberts-Related Documents --
- NARAL Pulls Anti-Roberts Ad,...
- Have You Ever Been a Member of the Federalist Society?
- Is Roberts a Fellow Traveler?:
- John Roberts Does Not Belong To The Federalist Society:
Schumer will ask without any sense of irony: "Mr. Roberts, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society?"
While I'm a liberal, I know that Dem bashing of the Federalist Society is nonsense, but claiming ignorance that it's a conservative-libertarian organization is equally nonsense.
I did that over at Captain's Quarters.....
Which rights are they against?
Felix Frankfurter would find himself very welcome in a meeting of the Federalist Society. Actually, today his views would probably place him on the far right of the Federalist Socity -- against Baker v. Carr, against incorporation, etc.
There are lots of liberals who agree with what the Federalist Society stands for, but they usually keep quiet.
Roberts will respond: "I have no recollection of that Senator."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino is quoted in the Washington Post article, "He has no recollection of ever being a member."
However, he may be a fellow traveler. Perino "said that Roberts recalls speaking at Federalist Society forums (as have lawyers and legal scholars of various political stripes). But he has apparently never paid the $50 annual fee that would make him a full-fledged member."
Born to be a Supreme Court Justice. Making sure he never offended anyone. How elite.
"A related question is why Roberts would not want to be
a member."
"Some conservatives said that a Federalist affiliation,
while a definite plus within Bush administration
circles, could only provoke hostile questions from
Senate Democrats -- so Roberts, in keeping with his
low-key approach to conservatism, just steered clear."
""It's smart from his perspective," a former Bush
administration official said."
So is the Federalist Society now like being a member of the National Lawyers Guild? Or is this official SPINNING because Roberts is NOT a member? Like Schumer is going to be nice now.
Only at some events? Damn, I'll keep my fifty bucks then.
Why the interest in his alleged membership in the Federalist Society? Oh, sure, it might be a legit quest for information to flesh out his thin record. But if that were all there is to this little mistake, ask yourself if the media made such a big deal of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's true ACLU affiliation? And would they have written it up like this:
"Ginsberg is also a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, a fraternity/sorority of liberals, mostly attorneys, whose members often espouse the view that the Constitution should not be interpreted literally and and support "activist" judicial decisions that find implicity but unwritten rights in the document including the unwritten right to privacy from which abortion rights are derived."
Adam, thanks for the link to the transcript. Have you read it past the portion that you've quoted? All your answers lie in that portion of the text. I challenge you to find one issue that the Federalist Society takes a position on. It cannot be done.
By the way, that IS a sincere thank you for the link. It shows just how ignorant my dear senator, Dick Durbin, really is. After proclaiming that he is not an expert on the Federalist Society, he immediately states that he does not believe that it is a debating society (after Dinh says it is) and that it "has an agenda" based on what he has read about it. Apparently what he reads about something holds more weight than conversing with a person that has firsthand knowledge about the topic.
They brought in speakers. They networked. And they promoted a conservative-libertarian agenda. That's what the Federalist Society does.
PS-All that noise you think you hear us making is farts from NARAL and the ACLU who somehow know what we RR'ers don't know--that Roberts is a nazi who is going to campaing for Roe's dissolution, and for locking gays in prison, and for disenfranchising blacks.
What's this country coming to when the news media report such easily-checked falsehoods? If he's not a FS member, he'd d___ well better join ASAP.
And while he's at it, the John Birch Society. How's this battle to be fought without more ammo than he's given the left so far? I hope Schumer et al will stand firm on demanding every document he's ever had anything to do with, including his class notes from law school, his exam answers and his doodles.
The Washington Post that "Alfred F. Ross, president of the Institute for Democracy Studies in New York, a liberal group that has published reports critical of the society" has given the Post "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. Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Roberts "has no recollection of being a member of the Federalist Society, or its steering committee." Roberts has acknowledged taking part in some Federalist Society activities, Perino said."
"Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard A. Leo said that either he or another official of the organization recruited Roberts for the committee. Roberts's task was to serve "as a point of contact within the firm to let people know what is going on" with the organization. "It doesn't meet, it doesn't do a whole lot. The only thing we expect of them is to make sure people in the firm know about us," Leo said. Membership in the sense of paying dues was not required as a condition of inclusion in a listing of the society's leadership, Leo said. He declined to say whether Roberts had ever paid dues, citing a policy of keeping membership information confidential. Whelan, who has been a member of the Federalist Society but said he had no recollection of his own membership on the steering committee, said the society is tolerant of those who come to its meetings or serve on committees without paying dues. "John Roberts probably realized pretty quickly he could take part in activities he wanted to" without being current on his dues, Whelan said."
Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Roberts "has no recollection of being a member of the Federalist Society, or its steering committee." Roberts has acknowledged taking part in some Federalist Society activities, Perino said."
This whole discussion is ludicrous because membership in the FS (at any degree of involvement) tells you absolutely nothing about a person's political or jurisprudential views more precise than is conveyed by labels such as "conservative" or "right of center." There is no crucial issue on which you couldn't find FS-sponsored speakers who would give you diverging answers. Take Novak's comment above about how the FS has been critical of the Court's liberal decisions. Would that be liberal decisions like Laurence v. Texas, for example? The decision that our own Randy Barnett (who has long been associated with and sponsored as a speaker by, though I can't speak to whether he is a "member" of, the FS) praised and defended as exemplifying his own theory of liberty-based jurisprudence?
The FS is, or ought to be, a non-issue in deciding whether to confirm Roberts. It does not have a single coherent ideology, unless one expresses it in terms so broad that it would be difficult for anyone who accepts the legitimacy of the Constitution at all to reject them completely. It does not engage in or sponsor litigation like the ACLU. Its members are therefore not subject to any conceivable "conflict of interest" in becoming judges. (Not, mind you, that I think membership in the ACLU should prevent you from becoming a judge. This is an a fortiori argument.) It has no secret handshake or masonic rites of initiation, unless you count annual cocktails on Ted Olson's lawn.