Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SURPRISE... John C. Roberts was NEVER a member of the Federalist Society!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by NY Patriot, Jul 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NY Patriot

    NY Patriot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    NY
    Scratch that one off his list of "conservative" credentials! :rolleyes:

    www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002431.html

    Yup... gotta keep your political base at arms length now that you don't need them anymore... their beliefs are so unseemly & anachronistic. Now full speed ahead into the brave new world!
     
  2. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    I'm smelling a Souter here...
     
  3. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,367
    i'll bet he wasn't in skull and bones either! what in the world is bush thinking here??


    :rolleyes:
     
  4. Rebar

    Rebar member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,867
    Well, to be fair, no one wants to get treated like Bork did, Roberts is playing the game, he didn't make the rules. It's not good news mind you, but it's hardly a disaster.
     
  5. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    Smooth confirmaiton - something he can put on his "win" list. Maybe he's saving the fight for when Rehnquist goes - but somehow I doubt it.
     
  6. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    He's saving the fight for when he nominates me. Now that would be a fight.
     
  7. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Seems Roberts has been lobbying for the job his entire career. He is evidently a fixture in the DC social set.

    He evidently was not a member of the Federalists Society. Is membership a bad thing? Why would anyone be a member of a prestigious organization and hide it?

    I have no hard evidence for or against the guy. Let's just say I detect an odor I've sniffed before.
     
  8. Shanghai McCoy

    Shanghai McCoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,603
    Location:
    The,sort of, Free state
    Just to be a PITA, I will suggest that some folks on this forum are not members of the NRA so does that make them anti gun?.....
    So he didn't join some club,BFD... :rolleyes:
     
  9. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    A fact made most clear by Ann Coulter, in her own way. She pointed out that for an intelligent lawyer to work on political issues in a political town and reach the age of 50 without ever saying anything controversial is just unnatural. She is right about that. It's so far beyond unlikely, it has to be part of a plan. He really wants this job, and has for some time.
     
  10. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    *little girl voice from "O, Brother, Where Art Thou?"*

    "He's a Souter!" :D

    Momma says he's bona fide (County Club Republican who swims in the Eloi culture of the East Coast).
     
  11. countertop

    countertop Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    At the diner
    First, Dana Perino is not only hot, but about as sweet of a person as you can find. I am real proud of her and expect to see her everywhere over the next 40 years.

    Second, concerning the Federalist Society - lots of people in DC never join it, even though they would otherwise be assumed to be members. The Federalist Society is mostly composed of law students - it was founded by David McIntosh while he was one - and since it wasn't in existence when he was a student, he would not have been exposed or recruited to join. Furthermore, there are just so many things you can join and or participate in. Why would someone as busy as him be a member. Its $50, but why join if your a Judge (no benefit) or a partner at a lawfirm who needs to generate business (how much business do you get from other lawyers). Add to this, Robert's isn't very social (I don't believe he is a big drinker) and the lure of the monthly Federalist happy hour simply isn't there.

    I wouldn't make anything out of it, but it is humorous how much clueless and assuming the MSM is. Since the Federalist Society is the evil organization du jour (and lets them talk about Constitution In Exile some more), they just have to throw it in.

    Ha Ha Ha


    Disagree with this too. Seems to me he is just too busy to get invovled. Certainly, a lot busier than me ;)

    Plus, he is a lawyer, not a talking head. The city is full of people who are attracted to the law and serious political and policy analysis - not just media whores like Coulter.
     
  12. WYO

    WYO Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    799
    I don't know if Justice Scalia is a member either, but he sure participates in their functions, including an upcoming conference on Separation of Powers to be held in Colorado in September.
     
  13. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    No, but it means I suspect they talk a lot bigger than they act.
     
  14. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    The only, and I mean only, indication I could find on Roberts' stance on the 2nd Amendment was reference to the fact that he was a member of the Federalist society, which clearly supports the 2nd amendment.

    Roberts is otherwise not on record one way or the other with respect to the 2nd Amendment. If someone can post a reference to indicate he has a publically stated opinion on the 2nd Amendment, I would like to see it.

    So think about this... We have absolutely no idea where he stands on this issue. I cannot fully support someone unless I know where they stand, how can you?
     
  15. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    I heard this quietly mentioned early this morning, but it was such a casual mention, that I was wondering if the guy knew what he was talking about. Well, that was his only connection to the conservative cause, folks, and now he doesn't even have that. Where are his conservative credentials now? I smell a Souter too. In a year, I bet Bush and his team will be saying, "We were fooled again. Can you believe it?" An old Republican ploy. Most republican politicians don't want a real originalist any more than a typical Dem, because an originalist takes power away from the Fed. The most they will tolerate is a couple on there as an occasional bone tossed to their conservative base. Power is the name of the game. Bush is a fake and a fraud.
     
  16. Silver Bullet

    Silver Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,335
    Location:
    Arizona
    +1
     
  17. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    I think her point was that most of them manage, at some point, to say or do something controversial. You kind of have to be trying not to be controversial.

    It sounds reasonable to me. Maybe I'm just naturally controversial. ;)
     
  18. Kurush

    Kurush Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    I'm not worried; Bush is an amazing judge of character. Just look at the brilliant advisors he picked for top jobs: Rumsfeld, Gonzales, George Tenet, Tommy Thompson... The list goes on and on! I'm sure he asked Roberts insightful, probing questions about his judicial philosophy and his views on important decisions the court has made.

    :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
     
  19. Gray Peterson

    Gray Peterson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Lynnwood, Washington
    This guy was either part of the DC Circuit Court or Court of Appeals, right?

    Didn't the DC circuit decide a second amendment case recently? *hint hint*
     
  20. countertop

    countertop Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    At the diner
    OK, there are 500k +/- people in DC itself, plus another 1.5-2 million in N. VA and the DC suburbs of Maryland. MOST of those people have some connection to the government - and of them, somewhere between 100k and 200k are lawyers. Think about that for a second. Thats a fricken ton of lawyers running around DC.

    On top of that, most of those lawyers are here doing serious policy work. The average DC lawyer isn't a slip and fall Johnnie Cochran criminal defense attorney - we tend to be highly specialized and compartmentalized and very serious. While some are lobbyists, only a few are media whores.

    I'd say, in any given year, there really are no more than 1000 lawyers total who appear on TV, and most of those "talking heads" you see are not really practicing lawyers, but either media whore lobbyists or "spokespeople" for one group or another.

    For the most part, going on TV does squat for your legal practice here - and in fact, in most cases hurts your client tremendously. If you have a corporate practice, like Roberts had, your clients for the most part don't want the public to know about their problems. Large companies like to keep things quiet, hence their lawyers keep their mouths shut. In addition, Roberts is an appellate litigator. He's not a trial attorney, but rather a very serious lawyer arguing high (and for most people, boring) technical points of law. Not really ready made for TV stuff, and fighting your battles out in the press is pretty much looked down upon amongst the appellate bar (abortion accepted, but then, those folks don't have real practices here). The impact to his clients from his going to the press (in the form of backlash from the bar) might even amount to malpractice. So, the real question rather is why would he go to the media.

    Now, prior to his 10 years in private practice, he was a government lawyer. Again, they aren't big on talking to the media, especially if your not lead counsel (or in his case - Solicitor General). Most of that goes through the press office. As a judge, he is pretty much off limits to the press too. Nothing to gain, and unless he wants to recuse himself from all manner of cases, no media appearances.

    FWIW - I have been here almost 8 years now, 6 in private law practice and 2 as a policy expert for a very public institution. While I've been quoted a couple of times in the trade press as a lawyer, mostly picking up points I made at oral argument, but also one interview I gave when we were trying to get relief in Congress (since the courts weren't helping - that was bad of me, but the senior partner ordered me to do it) I haven't been in the press. If I wanted, in my current position*, I could probably have my name in any of the major national newspapers multiple times a week. As it is, I get 5-10 press calls a day. I turn 100% of them down.

    Why? Cause I get nothing from it. Whatever I say on behalf of my clients will be twisted by a press biased against our side. part of this is bias, part of it is I deal with complex ideas not easily conveyed in 5 second soundbites. If you have to read multiple 100 page reports to even get a basic understanding of the problem, do you think a reporter is gonna have the time to learn the issue failry and report on it adequatly? No, some in the trade press do, but no MSM do. Plus, even if it was reported accuratly, it wouldn't get us any of the relief we sought, and the backlash from the people we advocate too would be tremendous as they were caught up in it (they spend enough hiring PR firms to do the press manipulation thing, they don't hire me for that). Finally, the press doesn't pay me. Why would I go on their shows and in their papers, enabling them to get ratings and create controversy at the cost of my reputation and my clients ability to succeed.

    The answer is, I won't, and Roberts wouldn't either.

    Ann Coulter though is a media whore - nothing wrong with that (I whore on behalf of my clients) but remember she has only her demented perspective that the people in her circle are the only people that count. She is part of the larger nepotism and self importance that infects everyone in the media (heck, just read Howard Kurtz's column any day for an example)

    *Don't waste your time trying to figure out who I am. Really, I am no one important, or anyone whose name you would know. I do what I do, and in the small community that i work in, people know who I am. You wouldn't know me (though a couple of people here do) - like most people in Washington, I am not famous - just a policy geek dealing with boring technical and arcane legal points who has horrid typing skills. And for what its worth, I am nowhere near as smart as Roberts nor have I ever made anything close to the $1million a year he pulled down at Hogan Hartson (though I almost took a job there once - thankful I didn't)
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2005
  21. countertop

    countertop Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    At the diner
    He is a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    There are at least 12 judges on the court, only 3 of which participated in that case. Roberts wasn't one of them, though when a petition was filed for the case to be heard En Banc (ie; before the full court), the DC Circuit declined to hear it, but Roberts joined 3 of his colleagues in dissenting from the opinon and agreeing to hear it
     
  22. Turkey Creek

    Turkey Creek Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    MO
    I've got a bad feeling about this guy- it's one thing to be ambitious, work hard and be rewarded for those efforts- it's another thing entirely to be ambitious, work hard but to do it with an ulterior motive that drives the ambition and hard work- I think this guy falls into the second class- the term "social climber" and all that entails keeps running through my noggin when I think about this guy- I'm beginning to think I made a huge blunder voting for Bush, but with Kerry as an alternative what choice did I have?- perhaps I should have stayed home in November!- I sure hope I'm wrong but if not, I'll have to take responsibility for what this lawyer will be telling my grandkids to do with their lives until they are well into their 30's- scary!!- please, somebody tell me it's going to be OK- :confused:
     
  23. countertop

    countertop Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    At the diner
    Its going to be ok.


    I guess I am still wondering why everyone who normally complains about Judges legislating from the bench and imposing their wills on society are so upset when a judge actually does his job?? Why do non lawyers expect to know who federal appellate judges are??? And why, when things are as they should be and a judge makes the right rulings that are so uncontroversial because they are the correct ruling, are non lawyers and non members of the DC or Supreme Court bar concerned the guy is an "unknown"

    Are we all really that naive that as much as we hate the press, we are willing to be duped into thinking only the people the press says are good are good?

    Geeze. Wake up people.

    Why? What do you know about him? Why would you expect to know anything about him? Have you actually gone and read any of his reported cases yet?

    Huh??? Because he's had a career that 100% of lawyers could only dream of?? Where do you get the social climber bit?? In a city whose social scene is still shaped by the Clinton's impact, thats the last thing I would describe him as. Bookworm, study geek, genius, boring are probably closer to the mark.

    What's his ulterior motive? To be the best damn lawyer in the country???

    Want to know more about him?

    Go here? Or simply [url="http://courtinginfluence.net/content/nsq/41%20Roberts%20Jr.,%20John%20Glover.pdf]read this[/url] (and guess what, he has been a far more prolific commentator than I thought - just not on TV as a talking head, rather as a lecturer to various bar and lawyers associations)
     
  24. Carlos

    Carlos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,196
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    I respect you immensely Countertop.

    I'm serious. I work for the Devil (well a lawyer who claims to be him). We get a lot done before trial in most cases at a very consistent rate. Much is preventative maintenance.

    I understand Roberts will be more conducive to States' rights; i.e., for such issues as the Death with Dignity Act and perhaps a rethink of the Medical Marijuana flop that just happened. It's about state's rights. the FED always denies monies if they don't play the game. Makes me sick.

    Seems to me the Feds and the States need to square off.

    I want to see young, proactive blood in the court.

    Renquist will soon be out due to health reasons. I respect him for his zeal, but come one, his days are numbered. All due respect.
     
  25. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    The thing that worries me about this guy is that the outrageously shrill left doesnt seem to be making too much noise about him. Does that strike anyone as odd?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page