Third Party & Independents: Archives

Unfortunately it appears that before the confirmation process ends with John Roberts there will be a long line of similiar “accusations”. While my thread was dealing with the humor I found in making an issue out of him being catholic, I read several sources who were attempting to make that a serious issue. I have also read those who have tried to make his wife’s position on abortion a reason to not support him as well.

To me this reeks of the very “mountain out of molehill” type behavior that has made many people turn away in disgust from politics.

Small details or not, he should answer questions truthfully, or not at all…right?

The way I see it, anyone that Ann Coulter doesn’t like is good enough for me.

So, Misha, from your article you seem to be saying in summary that the Federalist Society really has no agenda except to oppose liberal positions, save for their adherence to individual rights and the false notion that the Constitution should not be interpreted to meet conditions and changes that could never be dreamed of by our founding fathers.

And your point is that membership in the Federalist Society says nothing useful or potentially debateable about any one of its members.

Does that pretty well sum up what you are saying?

David, there is an important distinction here.

The Federalist Society itself has no agenda outside of fostering debate by bringing together people of diverse views to debate each other. The society sponsors no candidates, supports no judicial nominee, and conducts no litigiation. So the agenda is not “opposing the liberal agenda” but rather getting ideas out there that are often ignored and bringing together people from both sides to talk about them.

Individuals who happen to have joined the federalist society are so diverse that saying someone is a federalist society member gives you no information whatsoever. Core membership in the society ranges from moderate liberatarian to radical libertarian to moderate conservative to radical conservative. My friend who is in the ACS (the American Constitution Society- which is the liberal foil to fed soc) said he knows of several people who are members of both aCS and Fed soc- so the net of our membership is broader still.

As for how the constitution should be interpreted. I am sure there are many members of the soceity that think the constitution should be read in light of changing social conditions, although many would also disagree. I do not know which camp Judge Roberts falls into- which is exactly why this debate is so silly.

The suggestion, of course, is that membership in the Society portends some extremists positions that are unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice.

No, the suggestion is that Roberts may be lying about never having been a member.

So, we are going to worry if Roberts lied about something that doesn’t make any difference when he was not under oath? And we are not even sure about this. I won’t go into details about how Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Clinton & Kennedy handle the truth about their biographies. Suffice to say, there are worse cases than the worst case we can imagine about Roberts.

I could never hold public office. On several occasions, when my wife asked me if a particular skirt made her look fat, I didn’t answer truthfully. I repeated mislead friends and acquaintances on my true opinion about their cars, houses, girlfriends and taste in clothes.

Roberts is a disappointment to liberals. He is well qualified, smart and even seems to be a nice guy. The machine was primed to fling dirt on any nominee, but it don’t stick to Roberts. So now they will try the guilt by association. His clubs, his wife, maybe he owns a yellow dog.

Misha,

Isn’t the federalist society based on the believers in the “federalist papers” written at at time of the US Const. that define the thinking and reasons for everything in it?

I think the problem now is from those that wish to think of the Const. as “a living breathing doctument”, to be changed by the legal system, rather than the congress where they cant get the votes to do so.

About right so far ?

So, we are going to worry if Roberts lied…?

That explains a lot, Jack. Thanks.

Here’s a nice read from 2001 predicting EXACTLY what is about to happen….

It also gives good info on the society and its founders.

The Federalist Society describes itself as a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to the principles that “the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.” It encourages a conservative intellectual network that hosts hundreds of events, which are open to the public and generally include debates on legal topics. These forums have included presentations by scores of liberals, including Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Michael Dukakis, Barney Frank, and Patricia Ireland.

Kate O’Beirne

AP-

So how do you propose to catch Judge Roberts in his lie? His statement is that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society.

Are you going to probe the memory portions of his brain????

What David and Amercian Pundit said.

Misha:
“The Federalist Society itself has no agenda outside of fostering debate by bringing together people of diverse views to debate each other.”
“So the agenda is not “opposing the liberal agenda” but rather getting ideas out there that are often ignored and bringing together people from both sides to talk about them.”

Amazing. Both of these statements are so clearly untrue!

“Individuals who happen to have joined the federalist society are so diverse that saying someone is a federalist society member gives you no information whatsoever. Core membership in the society ranges from moderate liberatarian to radical libertarian to moderate conservative to radical conservative.”

Oh yeah, real diversity there.

Yes, how dare Bush want to appoint someone who is in the range of “moderate liberatarian to radical libertarian to moderate conservative to radical conservative”- he should have appointed a liberal, of course. Right, Adrienne?

JON STEWART: What has been the reaction in Washington?

ED HELMS: Liberals are outraged by Bush’s choice. They have been for weeks.

JON STEWART: Ed, they just found out about Roberts last night.

ED HELMS: That’s not the point. The Left wishes the president picked someone they wanted, not someone he wanted. I mean who gave him the authority? It’s abuse of power.

JON STEWART: I think it’s in the Constitution.

ED HELMS: What the Democrats are saying is they wish they had won the last election.

Bush was going to be pick someone not from the left wing. Since the federalist society emcompasses people from moderate to radical who are to the right of center, membership in the society means nothing to whether the candidate is qualified. But I guess “facts” should not get in the way of mock outrage and making assumptions about organizations one knows almost nothing about…

Why are so many people missing the point here?

The problem would be LYING about being a member, not necessarily being a member!

Many democrats and many on the devious “left” (such as myself) believe that Roberts is a fine choice for the Supreme Court.

However, I would certainly hope that Roberts is TRUTHFUL in answering questions.

Misha:
“Yes, how dare Bush want to appoint someone who is in the range of “moderate liberatarian to radical libertarian to moderate conservative to radical conservative”- he should have appointed a liberal, of course. Right, Adrienne?”

IMO, anyone who has been a member of the Federalist Society is clearly no moderate.

mattLaw:
“The problem would be LYING about being a member, not necessarily being a member!”

I consider both to be a problem for a Supreme Court nominee who will hold a lifetime postition on the bench — but of course lying should certainly be viewed as the greater of the two problems.

“IMO, anyone who has been a member of the Federalist Society is clearly no moderate.”

You have no factual basis (and are, in fact, not concerned with facts) for your belief. I personally know many members in my own chapter of the federalist society that are moderate. Of course, unless by “moderate” you mean “left-leaning Democrat”- which is what I suspect you do.

Adrienne- please tell me how many federalist society events you have been to? Do you know how many members the Society has? Do you know what views most members hold on issues important to you? The reason I ask these questions is to show that you need FACTS before you can make blankets stating that anyone who has ever belonged to a particular group is “no moderate.”

John G. Roberts, Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but admits participating in some Federalist Society activities. Robert’s name also appears in the conservative legal organization’s 1997-1998 leadership directory.

In conservative circles, membership in the Federalist society is a badge of ideological and political reliability. Roberts’s membership was routinely reported by news organizations while he worked in two GOP administrations and provided legal assistance to the party during the contested 2000 presidential election in Florida. But, he never refuted it then?

So, he’s got a bad memory? Maybe.

But, surely, he wouldn’t lie ? A judge lie ? Naaah.

But if he did, he’s on the correct route to undeserved prosperity and respect.

What’s wierd is lying about something that doesn’t seem to matter.

Why are so many people missing the point here?

The problem would be LYING about being a member, not necessarily being a member!

Yes, it should be.

I agree with mattLaw. I have no problem with any one being a member to the society. What i have a problem with is him lying. I find it hard to believe that someone could just forget that they had been a member to a society when they attended several of the society’s events.

Jack, you said

“On several occasions, when my wife asked me if a particular skirt made her look fat, I didn’t answer truthfully. I repeated mislead friends and acquaintances on my true opinion about their cars, houses, girlfriends and taste in clothes”

I hope you see the diffrence between lying to your friends about insignificant matters not to hurt their feelings and a supreme court nomminee lying to the country about his past.

I just want to know how many of you calling out Roberts feel that committing perjury while under oath in front of a grand jury disqualifies an individual from being president?

Just looking for a little consistency from the left.

Misha, thank you for the clarification. The core membership of the Federalist Society is by your own words, exclusive of liberal ideology and values. And that is fine. The use of the moderate depends a great deal on who is speaking it. I mean Timothy McVeigh could be a moderate if Atilla the Hun is speaking it.

I frankly don’t see a problem with a S.C. Justice having belonged to the Federalist Society. I also see where Justice Scalia is advising that Roberts simply speak up and speak openly in his hearings. It would appear Scalia has concern that Roberts may not be so inclined. Else why that particular advice.

You and I agree, Bush was not about to nominate a liberal, and the Democrats have no case if all they have is that he is a conservative in his values and ideology. If however, he is willing to lie or cover up in order to ascend to the bench, that is problematic. Scalia’s advice is sound and the American people deserve to hear the open truth from him about his past as it would relate to the kind of Justice and values he would take with him to the Court.

The Senate cannot advise nor should they consent if a nominee is less than open and honest on such questions. If it is found (not likely) in the hearings, that Roberts is less than forthcoming or honest in his responses, he will have displayed a sound basis for denying consent to his nomination.
For any nominee that lacks the mental capacity to avoid be caught delivering dishonest or obviously evasive or cloaked answers about legal and judicial issues or his ideology and values, is not deliberatively capable enough to sit on the Supreme Court.

The American people don’t want politicians sitting on the court, they want persons capable and willing to apply the principles and values of the Constitution to the demands and needs of our rule of law society in an impartial way which serves to protect and defend the Constitution and the integrity of these United States.

Misha has made the point that since nobody other than he is a member among the posters, they do not know what the organization does or stands for.

Normally that would be good enough but, others are quick to point out that the real issue is that he lied and as a result cannot be trusted from this day forth.

Evidently nobody in this thread has ever been through a period of time where all the attention was on them, questions and scrutiny coming from all sides, attending GOD only knows how many functions and answered a question quickly before thinking it through. Or, was in a situation where every question was patterned to get a startling answer.

Surprising the Clinton impeachment has not been yet used as an example of how the crime is forgivable but the lying is not.

Is it even possible that he was given some kind of honorary membership, never really participated, yet his name was listed. Is it possible that the organization is actually a good thing to belong to.

All we can do is lash out in opposition because he is appointed by our beloved President Bush. Who, by the way has never told the truth a day in his life.(sarcasm)

Surprising the Clinton impeachment has not been yet used as an example of how the crime is forgivable but the lying is not.

Well….it depends on what the definition of “is” is ?

I know several people who are members of the Federalist Society, and it’s only common sense that this man is a member.

Shouldn’t matter.

Misha:
“You have no factual basis (and are, in fact, not concerned with facts) for your belief.”

That’s bunk.

The Federalist Society tries to paint itself as apolitical (which is a complete and total LIE, but this is said because their tax exempt status requires it) while being a far right entity that started solely to serve private industry at the expense of the interests of the American public.
Everyone with a brain in their head understands this — and it is exactly why Roberts might choose to lie about it.

The fact is, it all started in 1979 (the year before Reagan was elected) when legal scholar Michael Horowitz published a tract instructing conservatives on how they might crush out all traces of liberal thought in the American legal establishment. He wrote that this could best be accomplished by indoctrinating generations of law students, lawyers, and judges — and suggested that this would be very easy to do if it began in law schools all across the country. After Reagan’s election in 1980, his administration set to work starting up the Federalist Society movement.

To clearly see that they are not now, and have never been filled with moderate thinkers, one needs only to look at the changes that litigators who have been members of the Society have brought to American laws.
Their entire goal has been to roll back or weaken:
EPA standards, civil rights, voting rights, workers rights, the rights of consumers, womens rights, the rights of the handicapped and the elderly, affirmative action, etc. etc.
And anything having to do with regulatory oversight they want kicked back to Congress and the States (regulation of things such as transportation, drugs, food, telecommunications, etc. etc.), in order to let the regulation be decided by elected officials — who just so happen to take their major sources of campaign funds from those exact same industries.

Again I ask you of the lying crowd here, how do you intend to prove his statement is a lie? He said that he has no memory of ever being a member. Unless you can do the Vulcan mind melt on him I can’t see how anyone could prove his statement to be a lie.

The truth is out there…

Adrienne,

How do I join this outfit, it sounds great.

Tax Exempt

Far Right

Serve private industry at the expense of the
American public

Crush out all traces of liberal thoughtin the American legal establishment

Sounds like just the qualities we would want in a SCJ.

Misha,
I had no idea you were a member. You have been elevated 50 levels on my respect barometer.

Again I ask you of the lying crowd here, how do you intend to prove his statement is a lie? He said that he has no memory of ever being a member. Unless you can do the Vulcan mind melt on him I can’t see how anyone could prove his statement to be a lie.

The truth is out there…

Are you suggesting that “I do not recall” is always an acceptable answer?

George in S.C.,

Surely you realize that those claiming mistruths by people that they don’t approve of do not need to prove anything. Conservatives, Republicans and Right Wingers are wrong about everything, always have been wrong about everything, and have been lying their way through the political scene since 1932 or so.

Maybe we should get rid of the whole Supreme court all together and hand our decisions over to……lets see….the Iraqis maybe?
At least the ones at Gitmo anyways, this would make up for all of our “wrong doings” and spread peace among the world!
If nominating someone who holds the administrations beliefs are wrong….then I can’t wait until the next Democrat gets into office and appoints all right wingers during their term!
This argument is just silly……If all the leftists polls are correct they will be holding the White House in the next election, and then all problems will be resolved, and there will once again be peace on Earth and life everlasting!:)

George, if he can’t remember being a member of the Federalist Society, will he be able to remember that he is a Justice, and act accordingly? I would doubt it.

If his memory is that flawed, we don’t need him on the Supreme Court. Now if wanted to run for president, he could carry on the the Reagan and GW Bush faulty memory tradition.

Judging from the sensitive and rather innocuous defense of this group’s agenda expressed here, it’s not surprising Robert’s memory lapse has become an issue. And, I further suspect his defenders here are therefore wary of the Dems using a tactic they’ve previously honed to perfection.

If this was a Dem nominee, the Right would be presently digging up every outrageous pronouncement by the groups’ members that Nexus could produce. Similar to finding Ward Churchill, and accusing the Liberal Left of being in ideological lockstep with every wacky rant.

As treacherously as the Right has used this tactic, they well deserve and should expect it now to be used against them. If the Left is smart, they should refrain from stooping as low.

Because, as the Rove/Plame scandal has shown us, it should be about Roberts telling a lie.

AP

The rest of the post too. The ellipses hide the point. I am talking about lying about things that don’t matter. And maybe not at all. Besides, as Misha says, it is no crime to have been a member of the Federalist Society. The Senior Democrat in the Senate was a member of the KKK. That doesn’t seem to bother anybody on the left. Ginsberg was a member of the ACLU.

Democrats can’t get on the high road here. I liked President Clinton, but you could always tell when he was lying because his lips were moving. (Democrats quickly determined that sexual harassment was no problem, as they thought it was for Clarence Thomas). Kerry couldn’t keep his own biographic details straight. He remembered being places he could not have been. Al Gore talked about clearing land and driving mules on his Tennessee farm as a boy. I guess he mixed up Tennessee with Rock Creek Park. Joe Biden just makes things up (at least he is amusing). Kennedy … what need I say about him.

So you guys really don’t care. It is like that scene from Casablanca where the French police captain is “shocked. Shocked, to find gambling” just before he is handed his gambling winnings.

There is a bottom line to all this. Democrats can complain about Roberts, but they will lose. Their strategy is just obstruction. Nothing will come of it but more acrimony and everybody knows that.

Roberts will be confirmed. Kennedy, Boxer and the other stooges will scream, and I will enjoy watching that on TV, but the result will be the same.

It’s funny, the same people accusing democrats of hypocrisy for caring about Roberts lie while not caring about Clinton’s lie are demonstrating the very same hypocrisy… they don’t care about Robert’s lie, but did care about Clinton’s. For Clinton, lying was an offense they believed was impeachable. For Roberts it is apparently a minor detail that should not prevent him from being confirmed.

It should also be noted that if Roberts were granted a merely honorary membership in the organization, it is very unlikely to have been in a chapter’s steering committee, which by nature sets agendas and schedules of business for the chapter. So he was not only in the organization, he was a part of its leadership and involved with setting its agendas. This is much more than a casual relationship with an organization he claims to not recall, while still recalling having been at events held by the organization.

(Please read with the sound of crickets chirping in the background)

I just want to know how many of you calling out Roberts feel that committing perjury while under oath in front of a grand jury disqualifies an individual from being president?

Just looking for a little consistency from the left.

Still no responses to my question even from those who hint that Robers is unfit for possibly “lying” about his being a member of this group.

(crickets still chirping)

Jack, you are probably right, the results will be the same. But where is your indignation if a member of your party is willing to lie to achieve power and hide his past? Seems to not be an issue with you as long as the result comes out right, your party in power. Is that integrity?

I heard somewhere that Roberts once smoked a joint, favors same sex marriages and is 100% in favor of enforcing humane treatment for POW’s. He is also anti the eminant domain ruling, gun ownership and, hates the tax breaks enjoyed by big business. He is a tremendous advocate for affordable health care for all and a viable prescription drug plan. As well he said that Bush’s social security reform would pass over his dead body.

It’s a shame that an alleged mistruth may be a stmbling block for his appointment. In fact even though I am a conservative I think he should be rejected out of hand.

Why are so many people missing the point here?

Because the right needs to generate some anti-liberal buzz. Otherwise people might think Congressional Democrats are reasonable because whether or not Roberts’ was a member isn’t even an issue. It’s about the lying - if he even did lie. “I can’t recall” is not a good start for him.

(crickets still chirping)

Of course, Kirk. It’s a dumb question. Because of the way Starr’s question was worded, Clinton never perjured himself - and he was never convicted. That must really piss you guys off.

There is not a politician at any level of government (local, state, federal) who has not lied at some time in his/her campaign and/or term in office. I would hazard to suggest that there is not a poster to this forum who also fits into that catagory.

Some lies have greater consequences than others, true but, depending upon the support a person has we can reduce that lie to a meaningless statement. Lies are always politically motivated and/or are for personal convenience or gain.

If Mother Theresa were about to be appointed to a position in the Bush administration and was asked if she ever had contact with someone of a sexual nature she would reply no. Then someone would dig up an incident of over 50 years ago in the deep jungles of Africa where she touched a young boys penis to remove a deadly spider. She would be challenged for her integrity immediately and called to testify at the committee for something or other.

If Mother Theresa… Blah, blah, blah.

steve, the whole hypothetical thing is pointless. Stick to the real world, otherwise it just sounds like whiney noise.

Oh, and I agree with the first part of your last post. Keep doing that kind of comment.

Steve Smith wrote: There is not a politician at any level of government (local, state, federal) who has not lied at some time in his/her campaign and/or term in office.

That is probably more true of politicians than any one else. But, it’s also probably true that almost everyone has told a lie at some point in time.

I thought the Mother Theresa thing was funny.
Ain’t it the truth how some things get taken out of context and twisted in various ways.

However, that doesn’t seem to be the case with John Roberts. It’s a bit concerning how someone can forget something that received nationwide publicity, even if it’s merely because he forgot. If he forgot, he might want to get a check-up to see if he’s got Alzheimer’s or something. Perhaps, it’s AAAADD (Adult Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder)? If so, he may not be such a good choice for the Supreme Court…especially, since it’s a lifetime appointment.

Which brings up a good question?
What happens if a Supreme Court judge loses their ability to do the job? Are there any qualifications or annual tests to force them to be removed if necessary ?

AP,

You know as well as I that my example contained volumes of truth. Dismissing them as “whining” is yet another example of the Liberals method of claiming that only their points are valid.

David

First, I don’t know if Roberts did lie. Second, it is not an important thing if he was a member of the Federalist Society. Third, Democrats have no right to make it an important thing.

I don’t believe people should be dishonest. But politics is the kind of game where truth has (shall we say) a different interpretation. This goes double for the Supreme Court. Did Kennedy believe all the things he said about Bork? Did they believe all the things they said about Thomas?

I was never outraged about Clinton lying per se. It depended on what he was lying about and I didn’t like it that he did it under oath.

This is a strictly political fight. Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer et al have no intention of being convinced by any truth. They prepared their basic opposition strategy long before they knew who would be nominated. It is a dishonest fight they plan to wage. That goes double for the NGOs. It is not about truth. This one is about power. I am happy that our side is the better one, but I recognize that we will win because we will overpower the opposition. They will not go away happy.

“What happens if a Supreme Court judge loses their ability to do the job? Are there any qualifications or annual tests to force them to be removed if necessary ?”

They can be impeached- thats the constitutional check on this. It has happend several times that juges have become unable to do their jobs because of old age, and usually other judges (friends on the bench) have come to them and told them that its time to go. For example, Justice Brennan did this with Judge Wright on the D.C. Circuit, who had begun losing his ability to judge.

Jack said: “Third, Democrats have no right to make it an important thing.”

Democrats are not members of the Federalist Society. Democratic Senators have the obligation to consent or not consent to Roberts nomination based on what information can be obtained about the man. Asking him about what it means to him to be a member of the Federalist Society is a legitimate question. If he lies in response to the question of whether he was a member, and/or a coordinator or leader, that has direct bearing on their decision to consent or not consent.

Yes, some of them will likely enter the hearings prejudiced to find reason to not consent. But, that in no way negates the relevance of Robert’s forthrightness about his past. It is relevant, and is relevant for both parties in considering nominees.

I just want to know how many of you calling out Roberts feel that committing perjury while under oath in front of a grand jury disqualifies an individual from being president?

I’d say it would probably depend on what was being lied about.

Roberts nomination will go forward, and I don’t think it should be stopped because of this. However, the smartest thing for him to do would not be to lie about anything during this process. Why give the other side something to latch onto?

mattlaw, exactly. That I think was Scalia’s advice to Roberts.

AP,

Of course, Kirk. It’s a dumb question. Because of the way Starr’s question was worded, Clinton never perjured himself - and he was never convicted. That must really piss you guys off.

You are correct, Clinton was never convicted. He avoided a likely criminal trial on perjury and obstruction of justice charges by agreeing to a deal with prosecuters. The deal included suspension of his Arkansas Law License for 5 years and a $25,000 fine. He was also permanenetly barred from practicing law in front of the US Supreme Court.

If Roberts lied he needs to do what Clinton never did. Stand up and say he was wrong. But, then again maybe he didn’t really lie because of the way the question concerning the Federalist Society was worded.

If Roberts lied he needs to… Stand up and say he was wrong.

Well, we can agree on that.

If Roberts lied he needs to do what Clinton never did. Stand up and say he was wrong. But, then again maybe he didn’t really lie because of the way the question concerning the Federalist Society was worded.

Didn’t Clinton go on television and say he was wrong?

Roberts wasn’t under oath, so there isn’t really a comparison in my opinion (and this only goes to his credibility).

(Though in Clinton’s case, it makes absolute sense for someone to state that they didn’t do ‘something’ when the precise definition of what constitutes that ‘something’ is given to you and it doesn’t describe your actions. That said, he was certainly misleading to the American public.)