That's some fabulous dirt boys, all ya got?

[thebin]

I think its nothing short of disgusting that the media and or some left wing groups are trying to make an "issue" of the fact that Roberts belonged or belongs to an honorable and intellectual group such as the Federalist Society- a group whose very existence is DEMANDED by the overwhelming preponderance (just about a monopoly) that leftists enjoy in almost all elite law schools in this country.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050725/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush_5

[jerseyhoya34]

I think it is a fair inquiry in the sense that it is a legal group, and he is nominated for the highest court in the land. Naturally, it is responsible to learn more about his involvement in legal groups on his resume, especially when he has very little judicial experience.

This kind of thing happens on both sides. A few conservatives probably raised a stink over Ginsberg/ACLU, and there would be an outcry if a Dem nominee gave money to MoveOn.Org or a leftist interest group with interests more relevant to the law.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Roberts, but, thus far, it does not appear as though there is a cohesive opposition where it counts in the Senate. There is posturing and criticism (on both sides), but no grounds for filibuster yet. Confirmation hearings will be critical.

[thebin]

I can't say I agree with anything you say here. I don't think it will be all that that interesting to see what happens to Roberts. I do not agree that confirmations hearings "will be critical." I think there is a greater than 95% chance that he is confirmed. And I think it is positively bonkers to compare an explicitly academic and legal group like the Federalist Society to an extremist hate group like moveon.org. Again, the Federalist Society exists because conservatives are an often intimidated small minority in law schools- and it is an academic group. Its quite similar to a student group at Gtown that exists for African American students to gather every now and again and feel like like the belong a bit more than they might normally. Especially when you go to a Harvard Law School as Roberts did.

[jerseyhoya34]

thebin said:

I can't say I agree with anything you say here. I don't think it will be all that that interesting to see what happens to Roberts. I do not agree that confirmations hearings "will be critical." I think there is a greater than 95% chance that he is confirmed. And I think it is positively bonkers to compare an explicitly academic and legal group like the Federalist Society to an extremist hate group like moveon.org. Again, the Federalist Society exists because conservatives are an often intimidated small minority in law schools- and it is an academic group. Its quite similar to a student group at Gtown that exists for African American students to gather every now and again and feel like like the belong a bit more than they might normally. Especially when you go to a Harvard Law School as Roberts did.

If you don't think it will be interesting to see how this process shakes out, why are you posting about it? "Interesting" is a neutral word. I agree with you that all signs point to confirmation at this time, and I'd intend to vote for his confirmation based on the information I currently have. I don't know quite what you intended in your response about the "interesting" comment, but I hope you were not trying to put words in my mouth about my disposition toward the nominee. I'll just leave it at that.

You absolutely FAIL to see the forest before the trees and nitpick/kneejerk about the MoveOn example, leaving the ACLU example aside, likely because you don't want to admit the bipartisan basis for this kind of gotcha politics on judicial nominees. Like it or not, Republicans blocked several during the Clinton Presidency in quantities that have not been seen since that time. Your unwillingness to recognize the bipartisan basis of this obstructionism is telling and troubling.

I went out of my way to give other examples, knowing full well that you would be unable to ignore the MoveOn example on its own. I hoped in vain that you would take the argument on its face and respond to the argument, but you offer nothing but a semantic point that takes nothing away from my larger point, which remains unchallenged.

Additionally, I offered no comparison between Moveon as such and the Fed Society as such. I merely said and suggested that both have the trait of being associated with their particular ends of the political spectrum and both are quasi-lightning rods, rightly or wrongly. I was obviously proven correct in the MoveOn case judging from your reaction.

Planned Parenthood also has chapters on some college campuses. Since the Federalist Society also has chapters on law school campuses, surely you must believe that the Federalist Society is an extremist organization, like Planned Parenthood. After all, they have traits in common with Planned Parenthood. Of course not, the logic, as with your response to my alleged iuse of MoveOn, is faulty.

Confirmation hearings are critical, and it does not have to be decisive to be a critical step in the process. Critical can be used in the sense of being crucial, and it is in that spirit that I recorded critical. Many observers agree that the hearings are the most important step in the process, and their importance is often only recognized in hindsight due to a nominee's missteps or ill-advised comments. If no such comments are made, this is the decisive moment and Senators can come together in agreement. At the very least, this is the time after which most Senators come out with statements of support or opposition.

I don't believe that the Senate's consent comes or is intended to come roughly one week after the nominee has been named. At this stage, any decisive comments of support for a nominee in terms of voting on the Senate floor are as irresponsible as the vitriol from the circles on the left. Most Senators, save for the extremists, wait to learn more about the nominee during the August recess and confirmation hearings before deciding how to vote. Sure, you'll see many of them say that they are supportive at this stage, but they most often qualify that support with "based on what I know now" or something of that ilk. In some cases, mostly Republicans, they'll call for "fair hearings" and discuss process, which tacitly implies a supportive disposition toward the nominee.

We can leave discussions about MoveOn as such aside. Suffice to say that the far right appears more dangerous at this time to me than the far left. Rep. Tancredo (R-CO), for example, is making some elements of his party undistinguishable from the Taliban in some respects, especially when he openly discusses bombing Mecca and then refuses to apologize about it. I don't care what the context is and whether or not he meant such attacks only in response to a terrorist attack. These statements are a boon to terrorist organizations, and the topic should not even be broached because of its hypothetical and sensitive nature.

In the case of MoveOn, I disagree with many of the things it does and believe that it has lost its coherent message by attacking for its own sake.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

The Federalist Society is a little bit more than right of center. Their key not speaker this year began his speech by referencing how none of its members would probably ever be able to hold elective office because of the view espoused by its membership. I think that one's membership in a political group such as the Federalist Society is something that should be considered when legislators decide whether this is the kind of person that they want on the Supreme Court Bench.

While I can clearly see that you seem to have some sort of emotional attatchment or value placed on the work of the Federalist Society, I clearly believe it is within the scope of congressional inquiry into a candidate's worthiness for the post of Supreme Court Justice. And as Jersey has pointed out - if the shoe was on the other foot you would be crying foul for a completely different reason.

I contend, however, that since President Bush has chosen to nominate a jurist with such little experience on the record in devisive issues it is helpful to look into his personal affiliations with political groups in order to gauge where he will come down on issues.

Let's take some of the Federalist Society's recent white papers for example:

The organization endorses a viewpoint in the posting of this June 2005 white paper which takes an overly regressive approach to affirmative action.

The use of racial and ethnic classifications is presumptively unconstitutional, divisive, and unfair; it is bad economic and social policy.

This white paper strongly suggests the need to rethink the entire test regarding the establishment of religion clause. This rethinking entails getting rid of the broad lee-way given to the court under the Lemon test in allowing them to look at the intent of the exhibit, making it harder for such instances of violations of the establishment of religion clause to be removed.


The site also contains a pre-law reading list that does not even try to be fair or balanced in an approach to the law. Given that this purports to be academic advice given to students seeking knowledge about the law, it is fairly disturbing.

The most recent copy of Engage the Federalist Society's magazine is also helpful in determining the views of its members. I've pulled out a few quotes below.

John O. McGinnis sets the tone early in the magazine with the first article. His conclusion includes the following view:

Unlike some other commentators, I do not see
the presidential review process simply as a technocratic
one designed to create better coordination within
the executive branch30 or to advance the undoubted
virtue of government accountability.31 Instead, the
federalism and regulatory review orders replace New
Deal norms concerning the appropriate government
structure with norms that are closer to those of the
Framers and that more effectively restrain the special
interests that seek to live off the modern administrative
state.

Seems a little conservative to claim that executive orders should be used to over-turn the new deal, don't you think?

Anntim Vulchev claims that an ammendmant outlawing same sex marriage is too agregious an expansion of federalism - hence we should just outlaw same sex marriage where ever it happens. Nice nuance.

Conservatives
who have criticized the Supreme Court’s nationalization
of abortion in Roe v. Wade should support a
more modest amendment that would prevent one state,
such as Massachusetts, from deciding the policy on
same-sex marriage for all other states.

So I think that if we take some of the Justice nominee's political group's feelings on the issues into account it can help round out our picture of him before he answers questions to his opinion on the issues themselves.

So far though it seems that he would be against Gay Marriage, give the President broader powers of executive order so that he might destroy large federalist programs such as social security, be more apt to allow religious expression in public places, and be against the use of affirmative action or similar policies in any circumstance.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Again when you use phrases like "extremist hate group" to describe political groups you should be very careful about what and who you are categorizing as such without warrant or definition. See my earlier post about this subject in the supreme court nomination thread.

I feel that your comparison of Roberts' political affiliations at Harvard Law to someone being in a racial or ethnic club or group is more rediculous than your nit-picking of Jersey's example.

[AustinHoya03]

The NYT weighs in on Roberts' association with the Federalist Society:

www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/opinion/26tue3.html

Some selected excerpts:
"Mr. Roberts's handlers were no doubt concerned that the society's reputation as an organization of hard-line conservatives could work against him during the confirmation process."

"Mr. Roberts has a remarkably opaque record when it comes to his views on controversial issues. The American public has little to go on in evaluating his politics or legal philosophy. But at the same time, leaders of conservative groups seem to know enough to declare that they are delighted with his selection and confident that he will side with them on the court."

The tone of the editorial is that the Federalist Society is some secret group of archconservatives that meet in an undisclosed location on the second Sabbath after the full moon to eat flesh and discuss the undoing of the New Deal (what view did you think the Federalist Society would take on the largest-ever expansion of federal power in US History)? The editorial stops short of saying that if Roberts should immediately be Borked if he was part of this group, but it's clear the Federalist Society is a big stain on Roberts' record as far as the NYT is concerned.

However, as thebin points out, the portrayal of the Federalist Society by the NYT and others is far from accurate. I'm not a member of the Federalist Society at UT Law, but people I know involved in the organization are mostly your run-of-the-mill center-right conservatives. My favorite first-year professor, who is controversial but no crazy, has spoken at their events. I don't have a problem with the Federalist Society, and I don't think anyone whose main experience with them has been within academia, where the free exchange of ideas is crucial, would have a problem with them.

Also, just because one member of the Federalist Society espouses a view in its political magazine doesn't mean Roberts agrees with him/her. And I doubt Roberts even paid attention to the release of those white papers. I'm sure that if I poked around I could find some pretty crazy stuff on the ACLU website, too, but I don't think all ACLU card-holders are crazies bent on destroying the nation.

I agree that not much is known about Roberts, and I would like to see the Senate ask him some tough questions at his confirmation hearing. In fact, Americans should demand that their representatives ask tough questions of a candidate about whom so little is known. But let's let the members ask the questions, instead of jumping up and down, pointing our fingers, and screaming "Federalist Society! Federalist Society!"



St. Pete, what's your problem with the reading list? I just did a quick scan but didn't see anyone too too controversial besides P.J. O'Rourke. Besides, reading lists don't really qualify as being scary things. It's a reading list, not a "you will read this and believe it as truth and not read a thing by anyone deemed to be left-of-center" list.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Well to start with - i don't think that there is a difference between the federalist society that meets in colleges and the one that meets in DC at Pew Conferences and other think-tank discussions and espouses a retrograde view of the law. Bin and Austin, you both seem to be arguing about the organization from your contacts with their on-campus branches. Which I would assume like Geogetown undergrad chapters of Amnesty International, Unicef, College Republicans, and College Dems is a little different than the parent organization - although it does get guidance from it.

As far as the reading list goes, here's some stuff that freaked me out:

The additional resources for study include - The Heritage Foundation, National Review, The Cato Institute, Hayek, Robert Clark, Irving Kristol, Arthur Lee, McConell, and 2 books by Robert Bork under constitutional law.

My main problem with it - as you point out - is that it doesn't attempt to achieve any balance or strike a balance that is slightly right of center - its far right. By giving this list to a college freshman, I think it is duplicitous to not say that it is what it is - an extremely conservative view of the law.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Btw, this just out - as principle deputy to the solicitor general Roberts authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned and for flag burning to be outlawed on the grounds that it is not speech. Guess he did leave a paper trail or his opinions on issues, just not as a jurist.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

More dirt: Roberts was legal counsel to Jeb Bush during the 2000 presidential election and subsequent Bush v. Gore court battles - we all know how well that legal counsel worked out. Can you say "family favor"?

[AustinHoya03]

Well to start with - i don't think that there is a difference between the federalist society that meets in colleges and the one that meets in DC at Pew Conferences and other think-tank discussions and espouses a retrograde view of the law. Bin and Austin, you both seem to be arguing about the organization from your contacts with their on-campus branches. Which I would assume like Geogetown undergrad chapters of Amnesty International, Unicef, College Republicans, and College Dems is a little different than the parent organization - although it does get guidance from it.

Fair enough. But if Federalist Society members on law school campuses are less repugnant to you, why should "steering committees" be any different? Like I said above, Roberts isn't the dude writing the Federalist Society's white papers or publishing articles in their newsletter. If one group of Federalist Society members can be considered less offensive than the guys running the show, why not extend that courtesy to Roberts?

As far as the reading list goes, here's some stuff that freaked me out:
The additional resources for study include - The Heritage Foundation, National Review, The Cato Institute, Hayek, Robert Clark, Irving Kristol, Arthur Lee, McConell, and 2 books by Robert Bork under constitutional law. My main problem with it - as you point out - is that it doesn't attempt to achieve any balance or strike a balance that is slightly right of center - its far right. By giving this list to a college freshman, I think it is duplicitous to not say that it is what it is - an extremely conservative view of the law.

Somehow I don't think ultra-naive college freshmen are cruising the web looking for book lists compiled by somewhat obscure legal societies. Even if they were, the preamble to the list should tip them off that the Federalist Society is right of center. I don't think the existence of this reading list is forcibly turning impressionable young Americans into Tucker Carlsons.

Also, some of the people you list are people that perfectly acceptable to read. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for Economics, Kristol founded a major intellectual movement, and Bork is a major US historical figure precisely because of his controversial work. What is wrong with reading these people? Just because they showed up on a list with a bunch of other folks that share their ideas this "freaks you out?"

[Z]

thebin said:

I can't say I agree with anything you say here. I don't think it will be all that that interesting to see what happens to Roberts. I do not agree that confirmations hearings "will be critical." I think there is a greater than 95% chance that he is confirmed. And I think it is positively bonkers to compare an explicitly academic and legal group like the Federalist Society to an extremist hate group like moveon.org. Again, the Federalist Society exists because conservatives are an often intimidated small minority in law schools- and it is an academic group. Its quite similar to a student group at Gtown that exists for African American students to gather every now and again and feel like like the belong a bit more than they might normally. Especially when you go to a Harvard Law School as Roberts did.

i don't have any problem with roberts' affiliation with the federalist society (a few law school buddies were members), but moveon.org is an "extremist hate group?" why, b/c a few yahoos on their message boards post unhinged things occasionally? if the unofficial, unsupported words of a few nutty members render a group an extremist hate group, then pretty much any political group of any political stripe would be characterized as such. could you point me to any language explicitly endorsed or promulgated by moveon.org that qualify it as an "extremist hate group?" i don't track the group closely so i'm happy to eat crow if i'm wrong, but i have a hard time imagining that joe trippi and howard dean have lended their official imprimatur to anything rising to the level of an extremist hate group.

[Z]

thebin, i'm curious to hear your response to this.

[EasyEd]

As Walter E. Williams said on the radio today John Roberts should be asked only one question: can you read? Or, can you read the Constitution. Not how you feel about certain political issues.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

wow. I can be a supreme court justice by that formulation. I think the real question is would walter e. williams say the same thing if a liberal nominee was sitting there - of course not. Sorry, but if the government took the rantings of conservative talk radio seriously then I don't know where we as a country would be right now.

[kchoya]

stpetersburghoya said:

wow. I can be a supreme court justice by that formulation. I think the real question is would walter e. williams say the same thing if a liberal nominee was sitting there - of course not. Sorry, but if the government took the rantings of conservative talk radio seriously then I don't know where we as a country would be right now.

I don't really remember, but I don't remember any conservatives foaming at the mouth for either of Clinton's nominees. I don't get the impression is any farther to the right of center than Ginsburg was left of center. I don't think it's so easy to say that conservatives would act the same.

[EasyEd]

The Senate approved the far-left nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsberg by a 97-3 vote, and the nomination of Stephen Breyer by a vote of 87-9, recognizing that the President has the constitutional authority to place his person in nomination and the Senate has the authority to advise and consent. The conclusion: the Republicans did not block either of Bill Clinton's Supreme Court nominees, nor seriously oppose them, whatever their beliefs. The Democrats should do the same for Bush's nominees and stop the forever "against everything and everyone associated with Bush" pattern they show today.

[jerseyhoya34]

kchoya said:

stpetersburghoya said:

wow. I can be a supreme court justice by that formulation. I think the real question is would walter e. williams say the same thing if a liberal nominee was sitting there - of course not. Sorry, but if the government took the rantings of conservative talk radio seriously then I don't know where we as a country would be right now.

I don't really remember, but I don't remember any conservatives foaming at the mouth for either of Clinton's nominees. I don't get the impression is any farther to the right of center than Ginsburg was left of center. I don't think it's so easy to say that conservatives would act the same.

O'Conner and Scalia were confirmed unanimously. Obviously, there was more opposition to Thomas because of his personal transgressions, so it is tough to read into that too much. Nine Senators opposed Souter, which is the same number that opposed Breyer.

It seems that conservative behavior toward Dem nominees has been similar to that of Democrats to Republican nominees. Additionally, I would say that the well was poisoned during the Clinton administration, when you consider that many of his nominees to lower courts did not even see the light of day.

[jerseyhoya34]

ed said:

The Democrats should do the same for Bush's nominees and stop the forever "against everything and everyone associated with Bush" pattern they show today.

This country benefits from having a two party system, and once you begin to see blind acquiescence, you start to see malfunctions in our democracy.

Currently, the Republicans have everything they need to push their legislative agenda through. The fact that a senior Senator from the southwest was more successful in pushing the President's judicial nominees through the Senate than the Majority Leader should indicate the source of the problem.

The Democrats have sponsored legislation to push some of their legislative items, but, mysteriously, most of them do not end up on the legislative docket. What should they do in that case? Fact is that they have little ability to achieve what they'd like to do on the Hill, let alone attract our "uniter not divider" President's interest. I do not particularly care for the Democrats' House leadership and will criticize them for it, but there are some obvious structural impediments to Democrats' advancing a legislative agenda at this time.

The burden is very much on the Republicans to get something done, and Vice President Cheney and others recognized this almost immediately after the election. Unfortunately for them, there is erosion in the President's base on issues such as Social Security reform, and there has not been movement to date on tort reform or some of those other issues that they ran on in 2004.