Clintonesque dishonesty. Lying without technically lying. It’s a character issue, at least.
I dunno. If he was a dues paying member of the Fed Society, he really has no reason to hide it. Scalia and Thomas are both members. Bush said he’d nominate guys like “Scalia and Thomas”. I’d say we’re still in the “what’s going on here” phase of this issue.
There are Democrats and Republicans coming out of the woodworks to testify for the quality of his character. Getting all wigged out over something like this little “flap” is a bit over the top. More than a bit, actually.
I can only see three explanations here:
[ol]
[li]He’s lying to cover up his membership for some shady reason.[/li][li]He’s lying to cover up his non-membership to avoid upsetting the types who want another Scalia, and his name got into the FS leadership directory through some kind of mistake.[/li][li]His memory is really so bad that he has no business sitting on the Supreme Court.[/li][/ol]
All that shows is that you have a limitted ability to analyze the situation, not that those are the only possibilities that exist.
So enlighten us, John; what other “possibilities that exist” are there?
I would have no problem at all with an amendment that explicitly created a right to privacy.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of the Federalist Society.
I walked by the building once. They released the hounds.
Would that include abortion?
I don’t think the reasons need be so duplicitous. It’s possible, perhaps probable in these contentious times, that the reason is Roberts has left a private paper trail that makes his judicial philosophy a bit less mysterious than it seems right now, a paper trail that would say far more than what he is likely to reveal through the typical non-answers provided during the confirmation process. BushCo wants a swift up-or-down vote, which Roberts would most assuredly win, and whatever is sitting in those file cabinets jeopardizes that aim. It’s no more shady than politics as usual.
Now that I think about it, why are they in such a hurry?
In the interests of full disclosure, I am a dues paying member of the ACLU. 
As I said earlier in this very thread, he might have been an honorary member.
Or, he might have been invited to be on the “steering committee” that year without payig any dues.
OK…
2.5. He’s lying to cover up the details of his pseudo-membership, or other association with the FS, for some unknown reason.
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.
Draw your saber, sir.
I’ve been sick the last couple of days, so I’ve been away from the boards and unable to do my own research to confirm this, but according to a politically aware friend of mine, there’s likely a much more innocuous explanation: one of mistaken identity. Apparently both CQ and Roll Call reported last week that Roberts had lobbied for some industry group or other. 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. This is a hell of a lot more plausible to me than Roberts-the-nominee lying about something that’s a) now a matter of public record (his name being on the rolls of the steering committee), and b) not particularly iniquitous to begin with.
The John G. Roberts that is currently going through confirmation hearings worked for Hogan and Hartson. Are you implying that this law firm had two different John Roberts during this timeframe, or is your friend mistaken? If the former, I’d like a better cite than the speculations of a friend, as I would think Roberts would have immediately used that as a rebuttal during his confirmation hearings.
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.
Did this issue come up during his confirmation hearings? I wasn’t aware that it had.
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.
I finally got into the Post article without having to sign up through a Google link. Deep in its bowels, it says:
Membership in the sense of paying dues was not required as a condition of inclusion in a listing of the society’s leadership, [Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard A.] Leo said.
It sounds like one of those worthless Who’s Who listings.
I posted this before the hijack:
Thanks, Gfactor. So I don’t see any evidence that Roberts is lying about this.