Listening to Drudge this weekend the word is that he was not only a member but an official accroding to some roster from 1998, and that Roberts said that “he didn’t remember” ever being a member. Curious, isn’t it?
I think that the White House is giving him bad advice by telling him to stonewall. Stuff like this should be given away with no big issues, and I think that he would have except he’s been advised not to. That’s the only possible explanation.
I agree, I don’t really see the big deal with him or anyone for that matter being in the Federalist Society. Its not like its the KKK of lawyers or anything even remotely close to that. The stonewalling and non-answers are whats really concerning me. Its pretty clear that he was at least involved with the Society, why isn’t he just saying “I have been involved with the Society in such and such a role but am not sure if I was ever officially a member.”?
I sincerely hope that this is not the candor that the Senate will experience in the next few weeks.
Is he going to be accused of being a “strict constructionist”? Bush has already called him that, and said those are the only judges he’d nominate.
Actually, we don’t really know if Roberts is a textualist or originalist (which is what Bush really meant, of course), but I suspect he’ll be asked that kind of question in the Senate hearings. Scalia is a self described texualist*, so unless someone is going to come out and say Scalia should be ejected from the court, then what’s the big deal?
BTW, the Washington Post is reporting his membership as a fact:
Prehaps the leadership position was honorary… I’m sure we’ll find out as Federalist-gate makes headlines later this week.
*I think he said he’s a textualist first, and an originalist second.
It’s hard to keep track. As I understand it, a textualist looks at the plain text without considering the intent (if they wanted it to mean X, they should’ve said X). An originalist tries to figure out the intent, going beyond the text. But people often use the terms textualist, originalist, and strict constructionist interchangeably.
Federalist Society, Schmederalist Society. Seems like we should be more worried about this tragic, yet ironically convenient, lapse in memory!
What if he forgets how many amendments there are, or forgets to put on his robe before he heads to the bench? What if he goes to write an opinion but suddenly finds himself with “no memory” of the English language or any of the precedents he was going to cite?
Early-onset Alzheimer’s is no laughing matter, and while I would never think of discriminating against anyone because of their handicap, it might be good idea to run a few very thorough psychiatric and medical tests to make sure he’s capable of handling the position. Who knows, the change of scenery as he arrives in an examination room stocked with drills and horse needles might even be enough to send his disease into remission.
(And given all the stuff they’ve been trying to hide for the last five years, it’s not unreasonable to guess the answer might be"Some seriously ugly sh*t")
It’s a lot more than that. It’s another pet organization of “Scaife and Friends” (the people behind the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, Landmark Legal Foundation, Accuracy in Media, Media Research Center, etc.), who have a lot more on their plate than strict constructionism.
I am a bit confused why the White House is denying the connection (both Scalia and Thomas are members), unless they are afraid that the public will find out that it’s a conservative organization if it gets brought up in a public debate like this. Like many of the “Scaife and Friends” organizations, it tries to make the claim that it’s non-partisan, but I wasn’t aware that anyone actually believed that of any of the organizations. Perhaps I’m giving people too much credit there.
When you walk into the room, and your four year old son suddenly swipes his hand behind is back and keeps it there while glaring at you in defiant “innocence”, the 10 Commandments of Dad says you find out what’s in that hand. There’s lots of stuff I want to know, but at the very top of that list is: stuff GeeDub would rather I didn’t.
Apparently, liberals have decided the French Fry Incident isn’t bad enough to keep Roberts off the bench, and they think the Federalist Society (ooooooh, scaaaary!) will do it.
Honestly, I don’t care one way or the other whether he belongs (belonged) to the Federalist Society or not. It seems like a perfectly respectable organization for conservative lawyers. What piques my interest is the waffling. That’s what gets me to go Hmmm…
All I want to know is how Judge Roberts views the 9th Amendment. That’s really the crux of the matter. Is the 9th Amendment an empty vessel? The judge’s affiliation with the Federalist Society suggests that he believes so.
I don’t care either. Another point of speculation out there is whether or not he is a member of Opus Dei. Combined with his remark to Sen. Leahy that he would “probably recuse himself” in cases that conflicted with his personal religious convictions.
I think the waffling is a deliberate tactic to divert attention from other stuff, and provoke the opposition.
Right, and Clinton was impeached for giving a blow job. This isn’t about the Federalist Society. It’s about lying. I do not believe that a man of his universally ballyhooed brilliance and legal genius cannot remember whether or not he joined. He is lying.
This amendment is an empty vessel in the sense that no important constitutional decision has ever been based on it. (See this old thread: “What do the Ninth and Tenth Amendments really mean?” http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=195525) But what about the Federalist Society’s politics or legal philosophy would mandate that it be treated as an empty vessel?
