It appears that we have our first bump in the road regarding the Judge Roberts confirmation:
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.
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.
Tempest in a teapot. And then there is this:
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.
Assuming this was just a mistake on Robert’s part, I really don’t know why this is a big deal, even if he was a member of the Federalist Society since it was started in 1982. For goodness sakes, you all do remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s resume, don’t you:
In 1971, Ginsburg was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973-1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974-1980. In this position, Ginsburg successfully argued several women’s rights cases before the Supreme Court, including 1973’s Frontiero v. Richardson.
Big deal.
Kevin Drum agrees:
Look, I’m always up for a spirited round of conservative scandal-mongering, but this is about the lamest excuse for a nano-scandal that I’ve seen in a long time. Why is the Washington Post wasting its time with this?
SomeCallMeTim
Nobody cares. If we try to make this a big deal, we deserve to be losing elections. (That does not, of course, mean that you deserve to be winning them.)
Blue Neponset
I really don’t know why this is a big deal, even if he was a member of the Federalist Society since it was started in 1982. For goodness sakes, you all do remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s resume, don’t you:
The difference is Ginsburg actually stated that she was connected to the ACLU.
It has been my experience that law firms don’t lend their names to non-profit organizations lightly. If Roberts (named as a partner in his firm) was truly on the steering committee of the Federalist Society I have a hard time believing he wasn’t aware of that fact.
If the WH made a mistake they should clear up the confusion. IMO, it is pretty weak for them to claim Roberts doesn’t recall being on that committee.
I don’t think his membership in the Federalist Society should be a big deal, whether it is or not depends on the WH. Right now it appears like they are trying to hide or at least minimize something in Robert’s past. If they want to make it a tempest in a teapot they will correct their mistake.
Dave Ruddell
The only way taht this becomes a story if it becomes about Roberts’ being economical with the truth. If it turns out he wa actively involved with the Federalist Society after saying he didn’t recall being a member, that may cause a problem.
BTW, the preview function is kinda creepy. Good, but creepy.
SoCalJustice
This is pretty dumb.
The Federalist Society representative at my former law firm was an associate, not a partner – and he did sent out about one email a month advertising some lunch or gathering, usually with some noted conservative legal or political speaker.
I would be very surprised if he ever said he did not remember coordinating those events – even a few years afterwards. But I wouldn’t really care either way.
Partners are generally much busier than associates – especially where professional affiliations are concerned – and I wouldn’t be surprised if his secretary did all the coordinating of FS events for H&H, but it still seems like an odd brain freeze on Roberts’ part – after all, he’s supposedly “brilliant” (clearly, his record indicates that he is) and no one ever suggested he’s brilliant in an eccentric/forgetful way.
He should have just copped to it in the first place and the media would have greeted the admission with a collective “so what?”
But again, no one that matters will care any more or less because of his lack of recollection, strange as it is.
neil
It is relevant only in the aspect of “is there anything these guys will be honest about?”
Mr Furious
I don’t care if he was in the Federalist Society or not (actually, I do care, but that’s me). It should be a relative non-issue to his confirmation. But it is disturbing (as it should be) that he hasn’t even been interviewed yet, and we are already getting “I don’t recall”s.
I don’t have a problem with the ACLU, as you do, John, but if Ginsburg was fuzzy on her participation, that would (and should) have been a problem.
With Roberts, was the WH using a Federalist Society membership to burnish his right-wing creds? Are they/he now trying to backtrack on that? This should be as straight an answer as there is. For this to be unclear is what makes it unusual, or even a topic for discussion.
eileen from OH
The only reason this is getting any play at all is because of a lack of any other news and/or legal background that gives an insight into Roberts’ own leanings. (I don’t count when he was an attorney for others. Lawyers are hired to defend and work for their clients, doesn’t mean they agree with them.)
And even the fact that he evidently forgot about it shouldn’t be a big deal either.
I belong to a lot of professional groups but mostly that’s a matter of sending in dues once a year, pitching the newsletter stuff, and sticking it on my resume. If it’s no longer on his resume, then I don’t see any kind of big deal.
eileen from OH
Jeff
“Even Kevin Drum agrees.”
Uh-oh, and I’ll bet his commenters are letting him hear it.
I remember back during the 2004 DNC convention when Drum said Obama’s speech was good but it wasn’t so spectacular that it deserved all the hype it was getting and you should’ve seen some of the flak he took.
Mike
“Jeff Says:
“Even Kevin Drum agrees.”
Uh-oh, and I’ll bet his commenters are letting him hear it.
I remember back during the 2004 DNC convention when Drum said Obama’s speech was good but it wasn’t so spectacular that it deserved all the hype it was getting and you should’ve seen some of the flak he took.”
Oh he is.
Anything that he says that flies in the face of Bush-hating Moonbat Orthodoxy gets him plenty of flak.
Steve
As others have noted, the only issue here is credibility.
I don’t think conservatives realize how badly they are shooting themselves in the foot by making a big issue out of Federalist Society questions. Yes, Democratic Senators are trying to make it out to be some fiendish secret society; but they have been laughably ineffective and will continue to be, unless Republicans continue acting as though there’s something to hide.
Rather than try and equate Federalist Society questions to McCarthyism, nominees should just answer the questions honestly and enjoy their new position. Or make a big stink, and get people wondering what the big deal is about this Federalist Society thing. Personally, I’m confused, because I thought Jonah Goldberg had rehabilitated McCarthy by now. Is it still bad to be compared to him?
ppGaz
Diehard social liberal here. So Roberts was on the FS mailing or contact list? Yawn. As a Dem, I’d say, hurry up and confirm this guy. Don’t waste a nickel’s worth of political capital on opposition to Roberts, unless something hideous turns up, which is highly unlikely.
I hope that the process does not get bogged down in this kind of ridiculiana. Maybe the two sides are just sending messages to each other that they are digging down into the very bottom of the detail bin. Posturing. Something to feed the blogs :-)
Jeff
Mike,
Drum could say that Bush is the 42nd-worst president we’ve ever had and half the moonbats would call him a DINO and tell him he’s not a real progressive for daring to suggest that we’ve had one worse.
Jeff
Actually, i should’ve said “2nd-worst”, not “42nd-worst”, because 42nd-worst would mean that he’s the second best.
That would REALLY give Drum’s followers something to be pissed about.
ppGaz
Too precise. I’d say he’s only the worst one we can remember having.
Gary Farber
A different bump (one he can clear up with one question and answer at his hearing, and I presume he will).
Geek, Esq.
The “I don’t recall” stuff is suspicious, but ultimately irrelevant.
Roberts is Clarence Thomas with better credentials and much less of a paper trail. Democrats are fooling themselves if they think he’s going to be anything but Rehnquistesque–he’ll be the most reliable conservative on the Court except for Thomas.
That said, he’s going to get confirmed easily, with a bunch of Dems voting for him not because they think he’s an acceptable choice, but out of political expediency.
Doug
I think the Washington Post is wasting ink on it because they have a narrative they’d like to write: Supreme Court nominee. Republicans think he’s great. Democrats think he’s horrible. Let’s watch them fight. Anything that fits the narrative will get prominent placement. Anything that does not will be largely ignored.
Have the hearings, ask the questions, review the documents. If anything comes up, maybe you fight about it. But don’t try to engineer a fight and assume that Judge Roberts will be confirmed without a lot of fuss.
ppGaz
Roberts strikes me as being a person who would agree with Kennedy as quoted by Amygdala.
But, it wouldn’t be out of line to ask him to say so, during his hearings. If for no other reason than to silence any anti-Catholic pressure out there.
Mind you, I say this as one who thinks that the Catholic church is a backward and possibly corrupt institution. However, that doesn’t mean that people who bought Volkswagens in 1958 were celebrating the Third Reich, if you get my drift. Maybe they just needed an economical car.
Geek, Esq.
Eeks. That does demand further scrutiny, but it also is a minefield for the Dems, because it invites dishonest demagoguery from the rightwing noise machine–with the wingnuts from Powerline showing what it’ll sound like.
Jeff
I read Farber’s link and agree he can clear all that up very easily, but people really need to stop bringing up all this “his wife is a pro-life activist” crap.
His wife isn’t the one that got nominated.
ppGaz
Agree, and WAPO is hardly unique in this regard. MSM in general, same thing. Blogosphere, same thing.
We live in a time when churn is king. Everything is driven by eyeballs. “You and him fight” attracts eyeballs.
Lis Riba
What about this aspect, quoted by Think Progress:
It’s not the membership, it’s the lying.
And if they’ll lie about something as minor as this, what else aren’t they telling the truth about?
ppGaz
Good point. But I’ve long since passed the point at which I assume that everything this administration says is either a lie or a manipulation. On the other hand, this guy was just put through a confirmation recently, so one would think that both sides would have their dossiers locked and loaded already.
Rick
So, the complaint is that Roberts may have a memory lapse, but in fact is even more credentialed.
Got it.
Cordially…
BinkyBoy
http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=810
A well put together piece about why Roberts should pull his own name.
Vlad
I’m pretty much 100% in line with Mr. F’s take on this.
Gary Farber
“So, the complaint is that Roberts may have a memory lapse, but in fact is even more credentialed.
Got it.”
Well, Rick, the Federalist Society membership is a credential in the exact sense that being a member, or member of the Board of Directors of, the ACLU is, as previously mentioned. I don’t know if you regard each as similarly praiseworthy, but it would seem possibly disingenuous if you didn’t, but objected to others similarly differentiating.
Myself, I’m neither horrified nor surprised at a nominee of President Bush’s having any connection to the Federalist Society, but the cuteness as to whether being on the “steering committee” but not “paying dues as a member” is precisely as honest and interesting as someone, say, saying something technically true, such as that something that “is” going on is not the same as “was” going on, or that oral sex is not “sex” when the legal definition proffered in the trial specifically says it’s only intercourse.
All these things are lawyerly ways of saying something “true.” None of them are “lies.”
Or, to take another view, they’re being too cute, and they are the moral equivalent of lying, in which case, it’s not about the Federalist Society membership, but the “lying.”
There’s nothing “extraordinary” or horrifying about being active in the Federalist Society, of course, but, then, neither is there in trying to keep a private affair quiet.
Me, hey, I’m fine with whichever of these views someone takes, so long as they’re intellectually honest and consistent about it.
As for Roberts, it seems extraordinarily unlikely any Senator would vote against him simply for being a member, or position in, the Federalist Society. It’s giving the appearance of trying to cover it up that seems rather peculiar. It’s so pointlessly unnecessary. Regardless, in and of itself, it’s not the sort of thing to seriously hurt a nomination. It’s just odd.
Arthur Silber’s link and point seem strangely familiar, BinkyBoy.
Gary Farber
I should probably note that, so far as we know, Judge Roberts never stated that he wasn’t a member of the Society while under oath. That might have made this likely trivial matter a teensy bit more complicated.
Sojourner
Interesting link, BinkyBoy.
Jess
In my cynical opinion, it looks like yet another example of the current crop of neocons attempting to undermine the pesky process of deciding our country’s future democratically. For the sake of both the right and the left, Roberts needs to reveal his political affiliations and leanings openly and honestly so that we know what we’re getting. If his legal positions are really the best ones for this country, why not be open about them? Of course various elected public officials might then try to block his nomination, but that’s their job–to represent the will of their constituents. Democracy cannot function without a high level of transparency (note that I don’t say absolute transparency), and I for one am revolted by the current administration’s obsession with secrecy and deception. I’m just not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything anymore, and so Roberts evasiveness seems an ominous trait in someone we’re going to entrust our civil rights to.
And yes, I would make the same complaint if they were all Dems.
Rick
In my cynical opinion, it looks like yet another example of the current crop of neocons attempting to undermine the pesky process of deciding our country’s future democratically.
Hoo-boy. Someone’s gotta disinfect the punchbowl youse guys are using for the Kook-Aid juice. “Neo-cons!” Who *are* these guys? And what does the Federalist Soc’y have to do with undermining democratic processes, when its “central organizing principle” (to borrow from Al Gore) is to stop legislating from the bench?
Now, if Roberts belonged to the National Lawyers Guild, then there’d be a cause to worry for our freedoms.
Cordially…
ARROW
This is from the same Washington Post article link
It seems to me that Roberts has already outed as being intellectually immersed in the principles upon which the Federalist Society’s was founded. These principles were stated as part recent statement made by the President of the Federalist Society:
While Meyer does not address the issue directly, mentioning the 97-98 Directory that was the subject of the WaPo article and then saying that the FS does disclose dues-paying membership, leads me to conclude that the Directory is not a membership roll. Kind of vague, isn’t it?
President Bush as much said Judge John Roberts shared the Federalist Society’s philosophy when he announced him as his Supreme Court Nominee:
In what moonbat universe is committing perjury to “keep an affair private” the same as saying you have no recollection of being a member of the Federalist Society?
Sojourner
ARROW:
You don’t seriously believe this horse shit do you?
Observers of the SC have noticed what happens when these folks get on the bench. We end up with a Scalia who pulls a ruling out of his ass using an argument he refused to accept before or since that ruling. The ruling? Bush v Gore. The argument: equal protection.
Anybody who buys this literalist crap is a fool. But you’re not a fool, are you? You know damn well that these folks will rule the way you want them to. And those on the left are no different: we want them to rule the way we want them to.
So cut the noble crap ‘cuz nobody’s buying it.
Scalia taught us well.
ARROW
I don’t have any idea how any of the Supremes will rule, and that would include Roberts if he is confirmed. I would only hope they would not create expansive interpretations of the law in any direction.
Regarding Bush v. Gore, I don’t think their decision was even necessary. The State of Florida had already certified the election results. Get over it.
ARROW
whoops…
Jess
I’m willing to give the Federalist Society the benefit of the doubt, and I have yet to hear a good reason why Roberts’ involvement with the same should affect his nomination–but if the FS is so benign, then why does he keep denying his membership? Why is he trying to distance himself? Why can’t this administration put its agenda (and its costs) out on the table BEFORE the decision-making process takes place? This is what I’m objecting to. If you bother to reply, please explain this rather than merely tossing out routine insults that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
ARROW
Do you think it is in the realm of possibilities that he’s telling the truth. That he has no recollection of being a member, or having paid dues, but is wondering whether his participation in whatever events/committees he participated in gave him some sort of de facto membership? Unless there is something about the FS that is not apparent at first glance, why would he deny membership? OTOH, if he is not a member, wouldn’t he be obliged to correct misunderstandings in the press?
Jess
Yes, I do think it’s in the realm of possibilities, but doesn’t it seem like he’s trying to distance himself? If he was willing to donate time and energy to FS, why not consider himself a member? Why not become a member, for that matter? If this was the first time this administation had presented someone who was supposed to be reasonably moderate, even if I disagreed with him/her I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But they’ve done this a number of times, painting a moderate face on their agenda while catering to the loonies. Like many people, I think they’ve used up the benefit of the doubt. If Roberts was more forthcoming I would be more inclined to believe him on this issue. I would like to see a true moderate on the bench–this country is too polarized for anything else to work–but what I would like even more is an honest respect for the democratic process. I’m not happy with the Dems’ record on this issue, but I’m truly horrified at how Bush’s administration seems to undermine democracy at every opportunity. This should be a non-partisan issue–how come more of you on the conservative side aren’t concerned?
Sojourner
You can’t ignore the fact that your beloved “literalists” displayed their hypocrisy on this issue. You may want to forget about it but anyone who takes the SC seriously cannot. Scalia turned your position into a joke. So blame him, not the liberals who know better.
Get over it.
ARROW
I don’t know if I’ll be able to do it…But, I’ll try to, sniff, to get over it.
Sojourner
You’ll be a better man for it.