The Roberts/Federalist Society controversy — from a slightly different angle

Like Kevin Drum, I find it a little tough to get worked up over yesterday’s flap surrounding Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and whether or not he was a member of the conservative Federalist Society. It showed plenty of unnecessary sloppiness on the White House’s part — first he was a member, then he wasn’t, then he was but he didn’t pay dues — but this is hardly disqualifying news. If we’re going to put Roberts through his paces, we’ll need a lot more than this.

Having said that, there is an interesting angle to this. Roberts himself hasn’t said much publicly, so the confusion here is generated entirely by the Bush gang. When journalists first started reporting that Roberts, like every other powerful Republican lawyer in the nation, was a Federalist Society member, it was the White House that called around, insisting on a correction.

There was something of an inference in the WH message — those Federalist Society guys aren’t mainstream, so no one should believe that Roberts is with them. Roberts, the White House seemed to imply, is above joining ideological/activist groups.

And while the left is annoyed by the attempt at deception, the really amusing part of this is seeing how angry the right is at the White House’s implications.

The White House’s efforts to distance Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. from The Federalist Society came under fire from conservatives yesterday for creating a blemish on his candidacy where none existed, and for sending a signal that membership in the influential legal society was something to avoid.

In conference calls plotting strategy for his nomination, conservatives spoke angrily yesterday about the White House’s decision to disassociate Roberts from the group. Many conservatives said the society should not be treated like a pariah, and questioned what would happen if the next Supreme Court nominee is a member.

The Federalist Society may be wrong about a great number of things, but they actually have a good point here. I know; I was surprised too.

Ever since the Federalist Society started having a significant impact in legal circles, the left has wanted to create a stigma around the group. This is an organization, the left said, of partisan ideologues who wish to impose a conservative agenda on the federal judiciary. It’s members, using this argument, should be held suspect.

As it turns out, while the left’s stigmatization efforts weren’t successful, the Bush White House has stepped in to do the job for us. By going to such lengths to distance Roberts from the group, even going so far as to start parsing the word “membership,” the Bush gang has done the left a huge favor — they’ve done more to malign the Federalist Society’s reputation in two days than we have in two years.

Manuel Miranda of the conservative Third Branch Conference said grass-roots leaders on his weekly conference call argued yesterday that the White House should not have tried to downplay Roberts’s involvement with the society.

”Our feeling was that the White House should not be in the business of disassociating themselves or appearing to repudiate The Federalist Society,” Miranda said. ”It’s a bad idea because the next nominee could be a member, so what kind of message are you sending?”

As it turns out, a pretty helpful one.

It really confused me, too. It’s not like we’re talking about the Rosicrucians here. The Federalist Society may be right-wing, but they’re pretty open about their agenda.

Denying that Roberts was a member seems penny-wise and pound-foolish: In the same breath, they make Roberts seem a little more centrist and make the Federalist Society seem a little more dangerous.

Thanks, guys–every once in a while, your incompetence helps us out.

  • He was a member before he wasn’t a member. 🙂

    It’s a little disturbing that he wouldn’t remember or try to distance himself from the organization, but I’ve read enough today to suggest his name could’ve been added by a firm he was with, and not himself directly.

    But, I wonder what would happen if a card carrying ACLU lawyer was nominated by Clinton? Oh, right, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I guess they’d confirm her.

  • He was a member before he wasn’t a member.

    Good one! I wish I had thought of that.

  • The Federalists are another example of a good idea being exploited by political moralists trying to re-make the judiciary as a moral platform. But in the end, it’s not such a bad premise. What I wonder is how many of these guys actually read the Federalist Papers, instead of the clips used to promulgate a warped impression of Founder’s intent.

    I think it’s OK to look to the constitution as a source document. The talk is all about “activist judges,� but the Constitution sets up a system which can and should evolve. Hell, they incorporated 10 changes up front! A lot of issues (“right to privacy�, for example), while not spelled out, are reasonable literal interpretations. That is, the Constitution says we’re protected from unreasonable search and seizures. The right to privacy is just a way of saying, don’t unreasonably search. No stretch required.

  • The Republicans are so used to not being able to speak their true agenda out loud that it was really a matter of habit. Outlawing abortions, funding the wealthy, dismantling social security, judicial originalism. Clear Skies Act. They just forgot.

  • I like how the advocacy ads talk about Roberts being considered “highly qualifed” or some such by the ABA, when the ABA was demonized and delinked from the judical nominating process back in ’01. Sort of a reverse of what is happening now with the Federalist Society.

    And if, there is anything that the White House “should be in the business of disassociating themselves or appearing to repudiate” it should be Karl Rove’s kid brother Manny Miranda.

  • He was a member before he wasn’t a member.

    Sounds like Oscar Levant’s (Memoirs of an Amnesiac) “I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin.”

  • Comments are closed.