Federalists are seriously whacked. Their group was formed after the Bork nomination failure. They have an ultra right agenda and are building legal theories to match their agenda. Think Supply Side Economics.
Well, we know that Roberts advised Bush on the Florida recount in 2000. I'm sure it was no surprise that Roberts was nominated to the court of appeals shortly thereafter. Roberts was nominated by 41 in 1992 to the DC court of appeals but didn't get confirmed. After advising the administration in 2000, Roberts was again nominated in 2001 but again didn't get confirmed. W nominated him yet again in 2003 where he was finally confirmed in as a judge. Just another example in the long line of cronyism of this administration. If you have any doubt that this guy is a hard core conservative, you're being mislead.
LINK Roberts Helped Push Against `Activist' Judges, Papers Show July 27 (Bloomberg) -- As a young Justice Department lawyer during the early 1980s, U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts joined in the agency's push against ``activist'' judges, newly released documents show. Roberts, a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith during 1981 and 1982, vetted judges' records, wrote articles on judicial activism and prepared talking points on ``judicial restraint initiatives.'' In a critique of one Supreme Court case, Roberts referred to the ``activist duo'' of Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan. ``Judges do not implement policy in the true conservative view of things,'' Roberts wrote in a February 1982 memo to a Justice Department official. Now 50, Roberts first worked in the Justice Department when he was in his mid-20s. The government released more than 15,000 pages from Roberts's files yesterday at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland. President George W. Bush's administration refused to make public other documents from Roberts's later tenure at the Justice Department when he worked in the solicitor general's office arguing cases before the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats are seeking those later memos, written by Roberts between 1989 and 1993, as they prepare for his confirmation hearings. Now a federal appellate judge in Washington, Roberts was nominated by Bush to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. Yesterday, the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee released a letter complaining that ``the White House appears to have so quickly moved to close off access'' to Roberts's later documents. Preparing O'Connor The 1981-1982 papers, while not revealing Roberts's positions on key issues like abortion rights, still provide a window into the early career of a rising Republican who crafted speeches and op-ed articles on behalf of the attorney general during the first two years of President Ronald Reagan's administration. Roberts also worked closely with Kenneth Starr, Smith's counselor. The papers show that Roberts spent his first days on the job in 1981 helping prepare O'Connor for her Senate confirmation hearing. He drafted answers to questions O'Connor was likely to be asked and he also questioned her during two mock hearing sessions. ``The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court, but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments,'' Roberts wrote in a Sept. 17, 1981, memo. `Hot Issues of Today' Roberts debated and helped set policy on some of the most pressing legal issues of the time, including the legality of school prayer, fighting organized crime and affirmative action. Judicial activism was a recurring theme. ``It really should not matter what the personal ideology of our appointees may be, so long as they recognize that their ideology should have no role in the decisional process -- i.e., so long as they believe in judicial restraint,'' Roberts wrote in a 1982 memo prepared for a speech by Smith. In the same memo, written on Feb. 16, Roberts dismissed complaints by conservatives that some of Reagan's judicial appointees were not ``ideologically committed to the president's policies.'' ``The hot issues of today will not be those of 10 or 15 years hence, when our judges will be confronted with new social issues,'' he wrote. Affirmative Action Roberts also criticized affirmative action. Responding to a report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Roberts wrote in a Dec. 22, 1981, briefing for Smith that ``the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates'' was affirmative action's ``obvious reason for failure.'' In an Aug. 25, 1981, memo, Roberts wrote that affirmative action involved ``reverse discrimination'' and that busing of school students ``has been ineffective in redressing racial imbalance.'' In September 1982, Roberts drafted a letter for the attorney general to respond to a newspaper editorial that had expressed ``unease'' over issues such as abortion restrictions being decided by courts rather than through the political process. The newspaper should recognize that the trend ``is a natural consequence of the excessive judicial activism it has often applauded in the past,'' he wrote. On Aug. 17, 1981, Roberts suggested lifting a rule that generally barred Federal Bureau of Investigation agents from contacting criminal defendants without first getting permission from the defendant's lawyer. The Constitution allows agents to interview defendants in their lawyer's absence by getting the defendant to waive the constitutional right to a lawyer, Roberts wrote. Attorney General's Image ``It seems desirable to remove the impediments'' of the government rule, he wrote. Roberts could be protective of Smith's image, as demonstrated in a memo he wrote to Starr after then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Samuel Pierce Jr. was quoted in a newspaper article as saying the attorney general had tried to gut the Voting Rights Act. ``Ken, is there anything we can do about Pierce's outrageous statements?'' Roberts wrote. ``I'd be delighted to draft a letter from the AG to Pierce, or a press release from the AG commenting on housing policies.''
So John Roberts is being attacked left and right, interesting ... Conservatives Alarmed at Roberts’ Role in Playboy Case http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8544 by Robert B. Bluey Posted Aug 12, 2005 Prominent conservatives tell HUMAN EVENTS they are troubled by the revelation that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts worked on behalf of Playboy Entertainment Group--the second time in one week information has come to light that Roberts helped a liberal cause. Last Thursday conservatives were hit with the news that Roberts, while a partner at Hogan & Hartson, did pro bono work for gay-rights advocates in the case Romer v. Evans, which challenged a Colorado voter-approved initiative on sexual orientation. Yesterday, HUMAN EVENTS documented Roberts’ similar involvement in a case involving Playboy and its challenge of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sought to restrict young children from viewing p*rnography. Roberts’ firm came out on the winning side in each case before the Supreme Court. But it is his involvement in both --playing the role of a Supreme Court justice in a moot court setting--that has led to second-guessing among conservatives who wonder why he wouldn’t politely decline such assignments. “John Roberts was a senior partner. John Roberts did not have to take these cases,” said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. “If John Roberts volunteered to take these cases, then this is very, very troubling. “It goes to a core value,” Mahoney told HUMAN EVENTS. “Would there be any cases Judge Roberts wouldn’t take? Would he defend the North American Man/Boy Love Association? Would he defend racist groups? Is there a line drawn where an attorney would not take cases? I would suppose if it isn’t for stifling a voter-approved initiative and for p*rnography being made more available to minors, then what kind of cases wouldn’t Judge Roberts take?” One conservative group--Public Advocate--pulled its support for Roberts this week after learning of his role in the Romer case. The fact that Roberts was involved in the Playboy case as well should outrage conservative activists who are supporting his confirmation, said the group’s president, Eugene Delgaudio. “We’ve got somebody who has worked for the political opposition for free and for pay. If he worked for pro-aborts, would that be enough?” Delgaudio said. “Do we really think, as conservatives, the stampede toward p*rnography and gay rights is the right thing? When do we starting mobilizing and reacting?” In the Playboy case, Roberts helped prepare Playboy’s lead counsel, Robert Corn-Revere, who worked with him at Hogan & Hartson, for his oral argument before the Supreme Court in 1999, Corn-Revere told HUMAN EVENTS yesterday. Roberts also attended a meeting that same year at the U.S. solicitor general’s office on behalf of Playboy. “In the 3-and-a-half to 4 years we worked on that case,” Corn-Revere said, “John may have devoted about a dozen hours at most.” With some of the nation’s most well-known conservatives gathering in Nashville, Tenn., for “Justice Sunday II” this weekend, the issue of Roberts’ work at Hogan & Hartson could serve as a distraction to the event. The Family Research Center, the primary sponsor of “Justice Sunday II,” declined to comment about the Playboy revelations after issuing a supportive statement last week about his involvement in the Romer case. Other groups, however, said Roberts should be questioned vigorously about his work on behalf of liberal interests when he testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September. “We don’t feel compelled to either attack him or defend him at this point,” said Peter Brandt, director of issues response for Focus on the Family. “These are all issues that I’m sure will come out at the hearings, and we don’t want to speculate on them. We’re like everyone else--anxious to watch the hearings and hear the questions that will be asked of him.” Added Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America: “It’s a troubling revelation, and it raises the question whether and when attorneys should excuse themselves from certain cases that violate their beliefs. Attorneys are hired guns. They don’t necessarily believe in the cause they represent, but there must be some limitation somewhere when you’re dealing with issues that have the potential to change the moral fabric of the country. We hope that there are some good questions at the September heading for Judge Roberts.” The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, said Roberts still has his backing, but he questioned whether Roberts could have avoided any anxiety by declining involvement in the cases. He said he is encouraging Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be “quiet severe” in their line of questioning. “In the Playboy case, ideally he would have said, ‘I don’t want any part of this.’ But whether that was even possible for him is an open question,” Schenck told HUMAN EVENTS. “I will temper my enthusiasm, though. I never thought we were going to get a perfect nominee. I don’t think we can get a perfect nominee. But I continue to think that Judge Roberts was the best nominee that we were going to get out of the Bush Administration.” Mahoney, however, noted the pitfalls of following the administration’s enthusiasm without first putting Roberts on the spot. “If Judge Roberts turns out to be [Anthony] Kennedy-esque or [David] Souter-esque,” Mahoney said, “the people who backed Roberts and were not aggressive have some serious questions to answer, not only to their constituents but to the nation itself.”
