OOOPS!

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory.

...

Roberts has burnished his legal image carefully. When news organizations have reported his membership in the society, he or others speaking on his behalf have sought corrections. Last week, the White House told news organizations that had reported his membership in the group that he had no memory of belonging. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Associated Press printed corrections.

Over the weekend, The Post obtained a copy of the Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. It lists Roberts, then a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5072401201.html

[Tigermike 3,053]

OK, tell us why being a member of the Federalist Society is bad.

I found the following on their website.

* Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.

* The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on 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.

* The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.

* In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.

* Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed 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. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

http://www.fed-soc.org/ourpurpose.htm

Q. What is the Federalist Society?

A. It is an organization of 25,000 lawyers, law students, scholars, and other individuals who believe and trust that individual citizens can make the best choices for themselves and society. It was founded in 1982 by a group of law students interested in making sure that the principles of limited government embodied in our Constitution receive a fair hearing. Click HERE for a more detailed backgroud.

http://www.fed-soc.org/Press/FAQs.htm

[Tiger in Spain 0]

an organization of 25,000 lawyers, law students, scholars, and other individuals who believe and trust that individual citizens can make the best choices for themselves and society.

Hmmmmm, individuals making the best choices for themselves....what a concept!

[TrueBlue72 0]

Yes, TIS, a concept like that scares the crap out of the socialist left! Imagine what little influence the left would have if everyone who believed that actually understood that the left opposes it.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

OK, tell us why being a member of the Federalist Society is bad. 

I found the following on their website.

* Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.

* The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on 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.

* The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.

* In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.

* Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order. We are committed 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. The Society seeks to promote awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

http://www.fed-soc.org/ourpurpose.htm

Q. What is the Federalist Society?

A. It is an organization of 25,000 lawyers, law students, scholars, and other individuals who believe and trust that individual citizens can make the best choices for themselves and society. It was founded in 1982 by a group of law students interested in making sure that the principles of limited government embodied in our Constitution receive a fair hearing. Click HERE for a more detailed backgroud.

http://www.fed-soc.org/Press/FAQs.htm

170298[/snapback]

Who said it was bad? But why deny it? Why insist on corrections every time a reporter says you are/were a member if you were on the STEERING COMITTEE! Say, "Hell, yeah, I'm a member and I'm proud of it!"

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Then why bring it up at all? It is at all plausible that someone could actually honestly forget something? Heck, I forgot what I had for dinner Monday before last, but I'm sure if you reminded me I had roast beef I would have remarked at how succulent it was.

I fail to see the enjoyment of finding a conspiracy lurking behind every tree.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Then why bring it up at all? It is at all plausible that someone could actually honestly forget something? Heck, I forgot what I had for dinner Monday before last, but I'm sure if you reminded me I had roast beef I would have remarked at how succulent it was.

I fail to see the enjoyment of finding a conspiracy lurking behind every tree.

170320[/snapback]

I may forget what I had for dinner yesterday, but I wouldn't likely forget I was on a steering committee. But if I did, an article reminding me of it would serve to remind me of it. Especially if I went to the trouble of asking for repeated "corrections". Denying something is a little different that just not remembering on your own.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Oh, now I see what the uproar is over....the Society is the main organization for conservative lawyers. That's the issue, right? Other than him being a Bush appointee, that is.

"What matters is whether he hung out with them (Federalist Society members) and not whether he signed the form or wrote the dues check," said David Garrow, a law professor at Emory University. "What's important is the intellectual immersion."

Whelan, who has been a member of the Federalist Society but said he had no recollection of his own membership on the steering committee

Will this evolve now into, "Federalist Society-gate"?

[Auburn85 432]

Here's a question or two,......Should this keep him from being on the bench? Is this anything major? And this memory laspe going to affect the way he legislates from the bench?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Oh, now I see what the uproar is over....the Society is the main organization for conservative lawyers. That's the issue, right?

170338[/snapback]

Not sure why you are still missing the issue, unless its intentional. You may have stated the reason they are downplaying his membership. My point is simple-- why downplay it? Say it loud, you're conservative and proud! Why ask for "corrections", especially since it was true, even if it were untrue?

"That damn librul media is trying to give people the idea I'm a conservative by saying I associate with that conservative lawyer group!" "Oh, wait-- you mean being on the Steering Committee counts? Well, never mind."

[AURaptor 1,126]

Why deny it indeed? ( If that's really what he did ). But say he denied it..why? I'm really sick and tired of the Right cow towing and trying to appease the Left on matters which it should be proud of. Much like when Bush 'crawfished' on the BRITISH claim of Iraq's interest in yellow cake uranium in Niger. That story has never been retracted by the Brits, and Bush was factually acurate in the SOTU.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

No, the issue is that there is no issue to begin with. Why even mention it at all? Can't we (as a nation) have just 1 week where there is no allegation of conspiracy or insinuation of wrongdoing? Life is too short, let's take the time to stop and smell a rose once in a while.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

No, the issue is that there is no issue to begin with. Why even mention it at all? Can't we (as a nation) have just 1 week where there is no allegation of conspiracy or insinuation of wrongdoing? Life is too short, let's take the time to stop and smell a rose once in a while.

170509[/snapback]

Why this week?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Yeah, no joke. The cease-fire is over! Fallujah Fonda drug me back in.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

What the Federalist Society Stands For

Group Is Haven for Conservative Thought

By Michael A. Fletcher

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, July 29, 2005; Page A21

After President Bush tapped John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, the nominee was widely reported to be a member of the Federalist Society -- an assertion that White House officials vigorously disputed.

When it was later disclosed that Roberts was once listed as serving on the steering committee of the group's Washington chapter, Bush aides continued to insist that Roberts has no recollection of ever being a full-fledged member of the conservative legal group.

The eagerness of the White House to distance Roberts from the Federalist Society baffled many conservatives. They believe the reaction fed a false perception that membership in the organization -- an important pillar of the conservative legal movement -- was something nefarious that would damage Roberts's chances of confirmation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5072801779.html

[Piglet 0]

From what I've seen, it looks like the Federalists bear little resemblance to the values of Alexander Hamilton. They're an extremist group that represents conservatives about as much as communists represent liberals. On the other hand, it doesn't bother me much that he was a member. It looks to me like one of those groups that overzealous young students join, and then grow out of, and probably doesn't accurately reflect Roberts's views today.

That he's willing to tell clumsy lies about it to try and look good does bother me. Probably damaged him more than if he'd told the truth. Just like Clinton.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

From what I've seen, it looks like the Federalists bear little resemblance to the values of Alexander Hamilton.  They're an extremist group that represents conservatives about as much as communists represent liberals.  ...

171654[/snapback]

Would you mind clarifying these statements? They make absolutely no sense to me.

Hamilton was one of the principal authors of the Federalist Papers (along with James Madison & John Jay) which argued for ratification of the then newly penned U.S. Constitution. It's safe to say that without publication of the Federalist Papers, ratification of the Constitution would seriosuly have been in doubt. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that Hamilton wouldn't be anything but a "strict Constitutionalist" if he were alive today.

Exactly what is so "extremist" in your view about the Federalist Society? In its Statement of Principles, the Society states that it is founded on the principles that the state exists to "preserve freedom, that the separation of powers is central to the United States' constitutional form of government, and that the role of the judicial branch is to say what the law is, not what the law should be." The group formed in 1982 (during the Reagan Revolution) to counter a perceived liberal orthodoxy in US law schools. You can't get a much more conservative outlook than that!

Similarly, liberals can never get away from their life long desire to redistribute wealth by taking from the hard-working earners in this country to give to the non-working non-earners. I believee Karl Marx espoused this philosophy best: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." (Just in case you don't know your history, Karl Marx is considered the Father of Communism.)

[TexasTiger 13,016]

From what I've seen, it looks like the Federalists bear little resemblance to the values of Alexander Hamilton.  They're an extremist group that represents conservatives about as much as communists represent liberals.  ...

171654[/snapback]

Would you mind clarifying these statements? They make absolutely no sense to me.

Hamilton was one of the principal authors of the Federalist Papers (along with James Madison & John Jay) which argued for ratification of the then newly penned U.S. Constitution. It's safe to say that without publication of the Federalist Papers, ratification of the Constitution would seriosuly have been in doubt. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that Hamilton wouldn't be anything but a "strict Constitutionalist" if he were alive today.

Exactly what is so "extremist" in your view about the Federalist Society? In its Statement of Principles, the Society states that it is founded on the principles that the state exists to "preserve freedom, that the separation of powers is central to the United States' constitutional form of government, and that the role of the judicial branch is to say what the law is, not what the law should be." The group formed in 1982 (during the Reagan Revolution) to counter a perceived liberal orthodoxy in US law schools. You can't get a much more conservative outlook than that!

Similarly, liberals can never get away from their life long desire to redistribute wealth by taking from the hard-working earners in this country to give to the non-working non-earners. I believee Karl Marx espoused this philosophy best: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." (Just in case you don't know your history, Karl Marx is considered the Father of Communism.)

171688[/snapback]

Are you using the term "strict Constitutionalist" to be synonomous with "strict constructionist?"

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Are you using the term "strict Constitutionalist" to be synonomous with "strict constructionist?"

171702[/snapback]

I don't know. A strict Constitutionalist is an advocate for the Constitution -- in this case, the US Constitution. What's your definition of strict constructionist?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Are you using the term "strict Constitutionalist" to be synonomous with "strict constructionist?"

171702[/snapback]

I don't know. A strict Constitutionalist is an advocate for the Constitution -- in this case, the US Constitution. What's your definition of strict constructionist?

171719[/snapback]

Well, in the context of the Federalists Papers they were advocating for a Constitution that set up a stronger federal government than they had under the Articles of the Confederation. Many who opposed the Constitution that had been drafted, opposed a stronger federal government. I'm trying to understand what you believe the relevance of the authors who wrote the Federalists Papers is to those who support "conservative" justices to today's Court.

As for your question:

strict constructionist (noun) -- a figment of the Right Wing imagination.