home

Memory Problems

By TChris, Section John Roberts
Posted on Thu Aug 04, 2005 at 11:11:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

While it's difficult to predict the kind of Supreme Court Justice that John Roberts might become, it is increasingly apparent that his memory is a bit fuzzy. First he didn't remember being on the steering committee of the Washington chapter of the Federalist Society. Then he neglected to disclose that he had been a registered lobbyist for the cosmetics industry.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Roberts explained that his firm had registered him as a lobbyist because he met with government lawyers as part of his work representing the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn. At the time, the association sought to block a proposed labeling regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.

...Roberts explained that because his work for the association consisted of preparation for litigation, "the question about lobbying on the questionnaire did not trigger a memory of those meetings."

Still another oversight: his failure to disclose pro bono work he did in "Romer v. Evans, which struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing."

Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released Tuesday. The committee asked for ''specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them.

Maybe he needs to take vitamins to help his poor memory. After all, someone who has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court might be expected to remember how the argument begins:

Once upstairs in the courtroom and standing at the lectern, Roberts would pull out a piece of paper on which he had written, just to remind himself in case he forgot, the standard greeting lawyers use to begin their presentation: "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court."

Let's hope that, if confirmed, Roberts remembers the Bill of Rights -- or that he keeps a copy close at hand.

< Thursday Open Thread | CNN Puts Novak in 'Time Out' After Set Walk-Off >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Memory Problems | 36 comments (36 topical)
    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Maybe he did
    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Maybe he did
    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Maybe he did inhale. We will get the Bill and the Right(s) will have their way with us. Curious the Gay rights ommision...it may sink him.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    A lobbyist? On the United States Supreme Court?

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Wow, so far the left has learned that: 1. John Roberts was on a steering committee that never met, and for a respectable org at that. Stop the presses! And; 2. He also worked for firm that did lobbying once, and tho he himself never did any, turns out he was duly registered as a lobbyist just in case. Sacre Bleu! That it? Man, what's next, prying into the adoption of his kids?

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Uh, I forgot what my comment was about. Can I apply for a job with the Supremes? I'll never forget...What's his name?

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#7)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    That it?
    Uh, no. What "the Left" has discovered is that Judge Roberts has a selective, and possibly convenient memory. Either you neglected to read the title of the post or you share his infirmity.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Since Roberts participated in the 2000 SCOTUS COUP, he is ineligible for any job as a judge. He's a co-conspirator, and that ain't legal. Business-as-usual DC and the TL trolls pretend that the country isn't in a Constitutional Crisis, but guess again.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#9)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    In most states, a person who wants to become a lawyer has to submit to a fairly extensive character examination, and must provide answers to a very lengthy set of questions about his or her background. Leaving out details -- even if they're not particularly important in and of themselves -- can result a denial of one's application to sit for the bar exam. And in my state they're serious about wanting the details. I know people whose answers were rejected for failure to identify their speeding tickets with sufficient particularity. And yes, they want to know about every speeding ticket. For those of us who were a wee bit lead-footed in our youths, this aspect of the character exam presented us with an exercise in the fine art of public records searches (I ended up going to about 5 different county courthouses to go through the traffic dockets for dates, case numbers and dispositions for my collection of infractions). For this reason, as well as a few others, those of us who were a little older when applied to sit for the bar considered the whole process to be a subtle form of age discrimination. This is what we routinely expect of people who simply want a license to practice law, and I've got no problem with it. The citizens of my fine state are entitled to put prospective lawyers through a vetting process. In Roberts' case, we're talking about vetting a prospective Supreme Court justice, not just some schmoo who's just as likely to spend the rest of his career drafting wills and bankruptcy petitions somewhere in Podunk as anything else. So I see no reason not to expect Roberts to get all the details in his questionnaire responses, nor do I see a problem with calling him on his omissions.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#10)
    by aahpat on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    The Constitution vs. Catholicism In July the New York Times reported: "Congressional Republicans warn Democrats not to make Judge John G Roberts's Roman Catholic faith an issue in Supreme Court confirmation hearings" But the Catholic church made itself and the faith of public officials who are Catholic an issue in American government last year when it inserted itself into the presidential elections.......

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#11)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Quaker, In each case Roberts had no active participation in the activity/org in q, which is why he didn't recall right away that his name had been placed on a list. He did recall, and stated right up front, that he had done a coupla speeches to the Federalist Society; active participation! Montessori was right! Seems pretty straightforward then: the non-events were just that, non-events that he never gave a second thought to. After weeks of digging, this is all the Left's got on this guy? That he forgot about some events that never occurred and some activities that he never did? Rock on.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#12)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Aahpat, Would you apply your logic equally to other orgs, such as the ACLU? If the ACLU inserted itself into elections by advocating a position or a candidate, directly or indirectly, should all ACLU members subsequently be barred from SCOTUS? Substitute the name of your favorite orgs as you like. Same pt. The only real q is: will the judge uphold the law? By all accounts with Roberts, the answer is a resounding yes. If you have a specific counter-example, I'm all ears.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Funny that you call that 'reporting,' aahpat. Mediamatter.org has already documented that Roberts-SUPPORTERS are referencing his Catholicism far more than his opponents. Catholicism Not the Problem The backroom deal between Bush and Ratzinger aside, Roberts is trying to skate through without disclosing HIS OBVIOUS BIAS. That has nothing to do with being a Catholic, and everything to do with being DISHONEST.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Love how aahpat and ras are now going to PRETEND that they disagree on any level.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    The vetting process a person goes thru for a supremes nom goes over EVERYTHING. There is no way his fed soc membership or lobbying somehow escaped his memory. ras, provide links the steering committee of the flagship chapter of the nationwide Fed Soc never met. I ask because
    "Listed above Roberts in the steering committee directory is David Rivkin, a former associate White House counsel in the George H. W. Bush administration. Rivkin said he paid dues but does not know whether Roberts did. The steering committee met through conference calls, Rivkin said"
    and
    Shannen Coffin, a Federalist Society member and former Justice Department official who has assumed a prominent role in defending Roberts, said that the White House's attempt to distance Roberts from the group ''was not well thought out" and that his involvement should be irrelevant.
    and
    Several Federalist Society members, including Coffin and the D.C. chapter's former president, former solicitor general Theodore Olson, said yesterday that dues collection in the 1990s was casual.
    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#16)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    After weeks of digging, this is all the Left's got on this guy? That he forgot about some events that never occurred and some activities that he never did?
    Well, that's a little closer than before. Like I said: selective and possibly convenient memory. Is it enough for "the Left" (whoever the heck that is) to get him disqualified. I doubt it. Does that mean TL and TChris shouldn't refer us to articles about it? Of course not.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Yes Sailor, right on....no memory lapse there. Even if he had not gone through the process Sailor mentiones a DC Lawyer belonging to the secret membership Federalist Society and forgetting she was a member would be like a star baseball player forgetting what league they were on even though that is less relevant than Robert's membership. And the big battle here, which I hope the dems do not sleep through, is the Separation of Powers issue. All the docs they have produced are available to anyone. When Clinton refused to give Docs the courts ruled against him. Now the repubs quote the lawyers who argued for Clinton, calling them privledged, but fail to mention they they lost their case and had to turn the docs over. Congress is entitled to any info needed to make such an important decision. That is how we are diferent from a Kingdom.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#18)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    Aahpat, You are providing - and I too, apparently - anthropological fodder. Specifically, we are apparently causing Paul in LA to illustrate the tendency of a like-minded group to amplify its core beliefs, all the way to absurdum (kinda like a philosophical pissin' match), and to bring even slight deviators - like you! - back into line thru harsh criticism, lest they stray too far from the orthodoxy. PinLA: Love how aahpat and ras are now going to PRETEND that they disagree on any level. Make no mistake. Paul in LA is challenging your right to belong here, and is threatening to "excommunicate" you if you do not follow the line. Note how he groups you w/the evil ras (hey, I kinda like the sound of that!) as a way of indicating how you will be treated in the future if you refuse to repent. It'll be interesting to me to see how you handle the attempted bullying. That said, my prev pt comparing the treatment of members of different groups - in this case the Catholic Church and the ACLU - still stands, and I would be interested in your response.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    I can understand the Dems sniffing about looking for whatever they can find to smear Roberts no matter how weak it might be but I do draw the line on the NYT trying to unseal the adoption records of the Roberts family. The same NYT that screams about privacy rights when it comes to law enforcement or abortion rights is trying to unseal records that are none of thier business. 'Privacy rights my arse!', is what the NYT seems to be saying. I can hear Chucky Schumer's first question now....' Mr Roberts are you now or have you ever been a member the the Federalist Society?' Sound familiar?

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    No one said membership in the Fed Soc was reason to disqualify him. Lying about it is. If you lie on a job app to a 7/11 and they catch it you won't get hired. I would hope noms for the supremes would be held to at least that standard. BTW, bork, orrin hatch, clarence thomas & scalia are members. Why wouldn't roberts admit to it? Here is what the FedSoc stands for:
    The society has argued for the abolition of the Securities and Exchange Commission, severely limiting the power of the Environmental Protection Agency, and rolling back gender equity laws (Title IX) and voting rights law. Its publications have criticized teaching evolution and attacked the principle of separation of church and state.
    Here is what the ACLU stands for
    The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
    Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state. Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin. Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
    I know which organization I'd rather be associated with. On a personally snarky note; the webmaster for the FedSoc in 1999 was listed as darvon@halcyon.com. Anyone else think that's funny?

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    This is very painful. Roberts forgot stuff? Under penalty of perjury? I'm astounded. He is already a judge, aware of judicial ethics, sworn to uphold the law, and dribs and drabs of "ah, whoops, oops, sorry" come out? It's like he's sinking his own nomination, or daring Congress to ignore the misstatements.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Yes that is rather funny. At the risk of offending the usual subspects but... What part of privacy rights don't you understand? Hey I lied about being a member of the Drama Club in high school so I wouldn't get teased by my fellow Hockey players! Perhaps if there was a time machine I could be fired from all my past jobs because I 'forgot' that I was a thespian! Whoa is me..Whoaaaa how sad am I... um well you can tell by now that I was better off playing on the rink and not on the stage. This stuff is pretty small potatoes overall and if the NYT is reduced to trying to flatter some county level civil servant into opening up someones adoption records just to satisfy a bunch of self-important baffoons at the NYT as well as by proxy some on the Senate Judicial Committee and the sychophants on their side of the aisle then there isn't any there there. But keep looking if you like but most people don't like anyone snooping around their family life because it is cheap and taudry and has the feel of a stalker. I'm sure if this were you instead of Roberts you'd be screaming about your right to privacy. Hypocrites.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    But lying about a blowjob...well that is serious. What will the children think.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    jimcee it's not liberals who are being hypopritical on this. It is you and others who decry the NYT's invasive practices, who cry about the recent property rights case, and then at the same time routinely pundicize on behalf of the GOP and its rabbke base.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Squeaky, Did I mention President Clinton? Glanton, Did I say Lberals? Trust me I'm not a Republican and I think the Kelo descision was terrible but I can also distinguish between which members of the court decided which way. I didn't use a R vs D score card because it would be inaccurrate. Liberal vs Conserative would be more to the point. And what the heck is a rabbke base?

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#26)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Sorry, meant rabble base.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    this is too rich. jimcee -
    what part of privacy rights don't you understand?
    So I will suggest, the part that roberts has written doesn't exist!? Apparently this commenter suffers the same memory lapses that roberts does. I believe in the right to privacy, but roberts as Sol Gen was the lawyer of the people of the US, NOT the prez, (sureley gw can afford his own lawyer? And he's gonna need a good one) Plus, roberts LIED to the senate. That's a crime in itself. Or is lying under oath OK if your a republican?

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    You did not mention Clinton but you did equate your lying about being in the Drama club to Poberts lying about being in the Fed Soc. What is the big deal about lying so as not to get beat up. Well, perhaps it was justifiable, and certainly no big deal in your case, but for a SC nominee about membership in the Fed Soc, well that is super serious, and quite stupid on Robert's part..

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Sailor- the Prez did get his own lawyer, so did Cheney, because of Fitzgerald. they are all in it together.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#30)
    by bad Jim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Selective memory failure served elderly Reagan and father Bush so well in the Iran-Contra affair, it seemed reasonable that the excuse might still have a little juice left in it, even though Roberts is a bit young to be suffering that sort of cognitive deficit. In the information he has provided so far, Roberts seems determined to be as inscrutable as possible, to such an extent that his honesty is becoming questionable. I would think that both honesty and intellectual acumen are prerequisites for a Supreme Court justice, notwithstanding the example of Clarence Thomas.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    The privacy rights I am refering to are the Roberts family's adoption records which for some reason the NYTimes has decided wanted opened for their examination. What business is it of the NYT? What purpose is served to drag a nominee's children into this debate? How desperate is the anti-Roberts/Bush side that they would pry into personal, legally sealed records on the one hand and whine about the intrusiveness of the Patriot act on the other hand. It is hypocritical and there is no other word for it. If I were president I would appoint Roberts to the Supreme Court by recess appointment just to see the collective heads of the Dems explode in indignation (not that anyone could tell). This whole thing reeks of desperation on the part of those who despise the Bushies and probably isn't going to play well in the so-called Red States.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    squeaky, my aside was a bit of indulged snark, the main comment was directed to how the WH claims "These are documents that were drafted while he was working as deputy solicitor general. They are protected by attorney-client privilege," WE are the client, not bush, was my point.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Roberts is complicit, he used his kids for the TV spot, but that is OK. I do not believe it is possible to appoint a SC judge as a recess appt because it is a lifetime post. But if Bush does, I hope that they come to your house first and take you away. Do not worry you won't need a lawyer, they will supply you with one of thier own. War time, you know. Maybe you will luck and Roberts will try you. Oh...war time...they will not need to tell you the reason for arresting you.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    the Roberts family's adoption records which for some reason the NYTimes has decided wanted opened for their examination.
    please provide links, but on another thread. This thread is not about the NYT, it is about roberts lying under oath. Let's try to stay on topic.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#36)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    The privacy rights I am refering to are the Roberts family's adoption records which for some reason the NYTimes has decided wanted opened for their examination.
    Holy moley! A reporter asked some questions! Stop the presses! Uh, so to speak.

    Re: Memory Problems (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    The Kelo decision is not 'terrible,' as some think. It was well-reasoned, and the dissent was disingenuous (but what do you expect from Thomas?). It seems to simply say, the court cannot argue with the States on their application of the property laws and eminent domain. The States should confine the application as they deem correct. Which is exactly what they are doing -- the system works just fine in this case. And that has very little to do with 'liberal' or 'conservative,' especially since it is a ruling apparenly in favor of DEVELOPERS, not something one would expect of 'liberals' (in the common sense of the detractors who misuse that term). Nor is opposing States' rights the act of 'conservatives.'

    Memory Problems | 36 comments (36 topical)