# Was Judge Roberts in the Federalist Society? Does it matter? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170 "2005-07-26T03:48:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/101 "2005-07-28T15:27:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In the interests of full disclosure, _I_ am a member of the Federalist Society. Earlier, when I made my comment about it bieng a reputable organization for conservative lawyers, I almost parenthetically added, “sounds like it’s right up **Bricker** ’s alley.” I’ve got you figured out, I think. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/102 "2005-07-28T15:29:32Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > The former. Not such an uncommon name, after all, and Hogan & Hartson is a huge firm. FWIW there are four John Robertses listed on the DC Bar website, although Judge Roberts is the only one who has the middle initial G. Does the steering committee document name “John G. Roberts”? If so, then my friend is obviously mistaken. The Post doesn’t clarify if there is a middle initial or not in the directory they received. We’ll have to wait this one out, I suppose. > [@](#): > > Did this issue come up during his confirmation hearings? I wasn’t aware that it had. I can’t find a transcript of the actual hearings, but with various media sources saying things like “The nominee himself did not explain Monday how his name came to be listed on the Federalist Society Lawyers’ Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998”, I’m assuming he’s been questioned about it. Otherwise they could be reporting things like “The nominee himself did not deny that he beats his wife and children” and get away with it. > [@](#): > > And as for this being “speculations of a friend,” I gave a cite to two publications from which the story ostensibly emerged. I’ve checked the online versions of both CQ and Roll Call, but I can’t find anything one way or the other in the non-subscriber sections, and I’m not a subscriber. But your two cites actually contradict your friend, unless I’m misreading your post, which is quite possible since I’m just “amateur lawyering” in this thread. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/103 "2005-07-28T15:30:50Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Thanks, **Gfactor**. So I don’t see any evidence that Roberts is lying about this. I agree. His nomination was hard fought, and the Federalist Society stuff is not new (except maybe the roster is newly discoverd). The questionnaire specifically asks about organization memberships, and he didn’t list it. You can bet he would have been questioned about it back then if there was any basis for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/104 "2005-07-28T15:56:04Z")
> [@](#): > > I can’t find a transcript of the actual hearings, but with various media sources saying things like “The nominee himself did not explain Monday how his name came to be listed on the Federalist Society Lawyers’ Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998”, I’m assuming he’s been questioned about it. Otherwise they could be reporting things like “The nominee himself did not deny that he beats his wife and children” and get away with it. 😕 The confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court seat haven’t happened yet and, as **Gfactor** has shown, the hearings for the DC Circuit didn’t involve anyone asking anything about the Federalist Society. When the various media sources say, “The nominee himself did not explain Monday…”, I assume they mean, “When called by various media sources, the nominee himself (and his spokespeople) did not explain Monday…” > [@](#): > > But your two cites actually contradict your friend, unless I’m misreading your post, which is quite possible since I’m just “amateur lawyering” in this thread. How do my two cites contradict my friend? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/105 "2005-07-28T16:10:18Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Earlier, when I made my comment about it bieng a reputable organization for conservative lawyers, I almost parenthetically added, “sounds like it’s right up **Bricker** ’s alley.” I’ve got you figured out, I think. Heh heh… well, given past conversations, it’s not exactly an insight on the level of boxers-or-briefs, Ginger-or-Mary-Ann, or beer-wine-or-liquor, but, yes, you are right on the money… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/106 "2005-07-28T16:14:02Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Earlier, when I made my comment about it bieng a reputable organization for conservative lawyers, I almost parenthetically added, “sounds like it’s right up **Bricker** ’s alley.” I’ve got you figured out, I think. Is that supposed to be a brilliant insight, or just a witty rejoineder? It’s not like he’s been hiding anything-- quite the opposite, in fact. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/107 "2005-07-28T16:15:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Is that supposed to be a brilliant insight, or just a witty rejoineder? It’s not like he’s been hiding anything-- quite the opposite, in fact. I would have thought it would be obvious that I was attempting humor. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/108 "2005-07-28T16:24:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bootstrapping abortion onto “privacy” is not reasonable. Control over one’s own body is \*not \* a matter of privacy? That’s not even a reasonable thought? Wow. Well, perhaps not for someone who is starting from a personal religious belief and is busily attempting to find a way to rationalize making the law fit it. > [@](#): > > I favor a right to privacy, and would support it as an amnedment; I disfavor it being read into the constitution as an emanating penumbra. Too late. Settled law. Deal with it. Or are you acknowledging that the Federalist Society is not conservative but actually reactionary? ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/109 "2005-07-28T16:32:40Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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. My 3 year-old nephew did this once -it turned out to be doodoo. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/110 "2005-07-28T16:34:56Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > [A]s **Gfactor** has shown, the hearings for the DC Circuit didn’t involve anyone asking anything about the Federalist Society. Actually, there was some discussion of the FS, and, IIRC, another nominee was questioned about his FS membership. All of this tends to show that the committee members saw FS membership as an issue and called members on it. But they didn’t do so with Roberts. _E.g.,_ > [@](#): > > You were not just sort of like a corporate attorney who was picked to work for one corporation and then another. You have taken a leadership role in the Federalist Society, which has pushed this line of reasoning and the States’ rights agenda. You have made public comments that you love the States’ rights movement. You advance your agenda with a genuine ardor and passion, advocating positions that go even beyond where Justices Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas have been willing to go. Senator Schumer’s statement regarding nominee Sutter in [http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/89324.pdf](http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/89324.pdf) (p. 62) > [@](#): > > We have many, many members of the vaunted Federalist Society, which my Chairman is so proud to be part of, all of these people come before us because I think, when it gets beyond the obvious, we understand that there is subjectivity here. Senator Durbin’s statement regarding Roberts in [http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf](http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jan20041230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/92548.pdf) (p. 58) > [@](#): > > May I ask another question? As we try to monitor the legal DNA of President Bush’s nominees, we find repeatedly the Federalist Society chromosome. And I would like to ask you as an officer of the Federalist Society—and I know every time I raise this at a hearing, the right-wing press screams bloody murder that this is dirty politics. > But you have represented that you are an officer of the Federalist Society. Why is it that membership in the Federalist Society has become the secret handshake of the Bush nominees for the Federal court? > Mr. SUTTON. Well, I don’t know that that’s true. I don’t have any idea whether it is true. The one point I would make is while I am a member of the Federalist Society, I’m also a member of the Equal Justice Foundation. And I hope—in thinking about my nomination,I know how important it is to realize who this person is and what kind of judge they would be. > You will keep in mind that while I have been a member of the Federalist Society, I was asked separately to join the Equal JusticeFoundation, which—whose whole purpose is to provide legal service to the indigent. That, of course, is a pro bono effort, takes more time than anything I do for the Federalist Society, and as to the rest of your question, I don’t know the answer. > Senator DURBIN. Let me just ask you your impression. What in your mind is the Federalist Society philosophy that draws so many Bush nominees to the Federal bench to its membership? > Mr. SUTTON. Well, I have no idea of what their philosophy is. In fact, my understanding is they don’t take— > Senator DURBIN. Are you an officer? Are you not an officer? > Mr. SUTTON. I’m an officer of the Separation of Powers Working Group. That’s true. But that doesn’t mean there’s a philosophy. In fact, my understanding of the Society is they don’t take positionson cases. Durbin and Sutton colloquy in [http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/89324.pdf](http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/89324.pdf) (p. 88) ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/111 "2005-07-28T16:38:52Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > 😕 The confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court seat haven’t happened yet and, as **Gfactor** has shown, the hearings for the DC Circuit didn’t involve anyone asking anything about the Federalist Society. When the various media sources say, “The nominee himself did not explain Monday…”, I assume they mean, “When called by various media sources, the nominee himself (and his spokespeople) did not explain Monday…” That was my mistake. I’d been looking into other confirmation hearings for another thread (the thread where the “Blue Slip” has come up) when I posted that, and got the two confused. You’re probably correct in that he didn’t explain it to the media. > [@](#): > > How do my two cites contradict my friend? It’s probably me misreading you, but you stated: > [@](#): > > Apparently both CQ and Roll Call reported last week that Roberts had lobbied for some industry group or other. and then this: > [@](#): > > Turns out, no he didn’t – apparently there’s another conservative lawyer named John Roberts who worked for law firm Hogan and Hartson in D.C., and he’s the one who did the lobbying. My friend speculates that this other Roberts is also the one who was on the Federalist Society steering committee. I’m assuming the first quoted text is based on the two cites (you didn’t link, so perhaps this is where I’m confused, but it reads that way to me), and that the second quoted text is based on your politically aware friend, his knowledge of this other lawyer, and what he speculates. The two quotes seem to clearly contradict one another. While I’m sure the disconnect is likely on my end, I’m still not seeing it. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/112 "2005-07-28T16:40:18Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > That doesn’t answer my question. I asked if the opinion of legal scholars was fully in agreement with your statemetns, as you presented them, since you presented them in a factual manner. > > Does that “yes” stand alone, or are you going to retract that, given that my question wasn’t a conditional one. You certainly seem to want us to believe that no one believes in “inherent rights” (unless by “legal sources”, you meant to include “natural rights”), when we both know that there are plenty of people on both sides of this debate. > > I’ll be the first to agree that it’s difficult to enumerate exactly what those “natural rights” might be, but that doesn’t mean that no one thinks they exist. common law? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/113 "2005-07-28T16:49:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, there was some discussion of the FS, and, IIRC, another nominee was questioned about his FS membership. All of this tends to show that the committee members saw FS membership as an issue and called members on it. But they didn’t do so with Roberts. Sorry, yeah, my phrasing was unclear…I meant that you’d shown that nobody’d questioned _Roberts_ about the Federalist Society. > [@](#): > > I’m assuming the first quoted text is based on the two cites (you didn’t link, so perhaps this is where I’m confused, but it reads that way to me), and that the second quoted text is based on your politically aware friend, his knowledge of this other lawyer, and what he speculates. The two quotes seem to clearly contradict one another. I’m still not sure how the quotes contradict each other. As I said, I don’t have any links for the cites, as it doesn’t appear that they’re available online. But here’s what my friend relayed to me: 1. CQ and Roll Call report that Roberts has lobbying ties that were previously undisclosed. 2. CQ and/or Roll Call (it’s unclear) then say, "No, wait, that’s _another_ John Roberts who also worked at Hogan & Hartson; it doesn’t look like Judge Roberts ever did that lobbying. 3. The Washington Post, among others, reports that Roberts is listed as being on the 1997-98 D.C. steering committee for the Federalist Society. Roberts denies this. 4. My friend speculates that the John-Roberts-who-lobbied might actually be the John-Roberts-who-is-on-the-steering-committee. If there _is_ a John-Roberts-who-lobbied who is distinct from John-Roberts-the-judge, this nicely fits the known facts. 5. People in this thread call John-Roberts-the-judge a bald-faced liar. 6. I offer an alternative explanation, admittedly without any proof. Where’s the contradiction? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/114 "2005-07-28T17:30:46Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > 1. CQ and/or Roll Call (it’s unclear) then say, "No, wait, that’s _another_ John Roberts who also worked at Hogan & Hartson; it doesn’t look like Judge Roberts ever did that lobbying. > > Where’s the contradiction? That was the problem. Your original post didn’t make it clear (to me, at least) that the original sources were then also the source of the change in stance. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/115 "2005-07-28T17:56:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely not. Another reason to work from clear text. Bootstrapping abortion onto “privacy” is not reasonable. > > If there’s a constitutional right to abortion, then the constitution should say so. I would NOT support such an amendment, however. > > Of course, should one pass, I would certainly not criticize the validity of it. > > Note well the difference: I favor a right to privacy, and would support it as an amnedment; I disfavor it being read into the constitution as an emanating penumbra. I disfavor a right to abortion, and of course disfavor it being read into the constitution as an emanating penumbra. Then what, specifically, would a constitutional right to “privacy” guarantee? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/116 "2005-07-28T18:36:35Z")
A right to privacy amendment would be a Rosarch Ink Blot amendment. Each person would look at it and deduce different protected activities and I suspect that we would hear the same complaints that we hear about Equal Protection. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/117 "2005-07-28T19:56:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Control over one’s own body is \*not \* a matter of privacy? That’s not even a reasonable thought? Wow. Well, perhaps not for someone who is starting from a personal religious belief and is busily attempting to find a way to rationalize making the law fit it. It’s not reasonable in this context… which I notice has already begun shifting from its very narrow theoretical tone, responding to **Blaron** ’s “But since people like you, and Bricker, and Bush, and Scalia, and Thomas, and probably Judge Roberts are around we need a right to privacy explictly written into the text of the constitution so it won’t be messed with.” I was pointing out when I responded that the only basis for my disagreement with the “right to privacy” was that it was defined as a federal constitutional right without appearing in the Constitution. Others offered questions for clarification, and I responded further. You’re now trying to expand what I wrote into a general treatise on the law. It’s not. It’s a treatise on how I would like the law to be handled. In our settled law, of course abortion arises from the right to privacy. I know that. End of discussion, if that’s your barometer. If you wish further clarification of how a textualist might want the law handled, then I’d be happy to reply further. > [@](#): > > Too late. Settled law. Deal with it. Or are you acknowledging that the Federalist Society is not conservative but actually reactionary? Sure. I agree it’s settled law, as I said above. Of course, _Bowers v. Hardwick_ was settled law in 2000, come to think of it. Was _Lawrence v. Texas_ “radical?” ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/118 "2005-07-28T20:39:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course, Bowers v. Hardwick was settled law in 2000, come to think of it. > > Was Lawrence v. Texas “radical?” That gets into the interesting question about what constitutes “settled law.” Come to think of it, I was going to bring that up in my next post in the Ideology and Extraordinary Circumstances thread – I’ve been lax on getting to that, and I’ll do it tonight. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/119 "2005-07-29T21:08:52Z")
No, really, **Bricker:** If you would support a “right to privacy” amendment to the U.S. Constitution – one which emphatically would not guarantee the right to abortion – then what, specifically, would it guarantee? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170/120 "2005-08-01T23:30:20Z")
The right to privacy does have \*effective \* Constitutional status, like it or not, **Bricker**. The concept of penumbral rights is established too. Abortion rights are therefore embedded in the list of Constitutional rights. You can wish it otherwise all you want to, but you might as well just change your screen name to Miniver Cheevy if that’s it. _Is_ the Federalist Society reactionary or not? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-judge-roberts-in-the-federalist-society-does-it-matter/314170.md?page=7)