Pathetic
It seems that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts really is squeaky clean, if this is the worst the left can come up with:
"Nefarious Ties
Harvard, the Federalist Society and other "subversive" affiliations. Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Wall Street Journal
The reasons to worry about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts continue to accumulate. First we learned he attended Harvard, which is always suspicious. Then the New York Times informed us that his wife, who is also a Catholic lawyer, not only worked pro bono for Feminists for Life but has in the past "attended Mass several times a week." Holy mackerel.
Then yesterday brought the Washington Post's scoop that Judge Roberts may once have been a card-carrying member of the Federalist Society. Mr. Roberts has said that he doesn't recall belonging to the lawyers' outfit. But in the best tradition of Woodward and Bernstein, Post reporters dug through the society's "secret" enrollment lists and--there it was, in black and white, the name of John Roberts, member 1997-98. This news actually made page one.
The Post's exposé continues: "The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by conservatives who disagreed with what they saw as a leftist tilt in the nation's law schools. The group sponsors legal symposia and similar activities and serves as a network for rising conservative lawyers." That's a subversive group if there ever was one, not least because we've seen with our own eyes that representatives of the ACLU have sometimes attended these public "symposia," and without disguising their identities.
We don't know whether these news stories illustrate the desperation of liberals who can't find any real mud to throw at Judge Roberts, or whether they've been planted by the White House to make liberals look silly. Come to think of it, liberals these days don't need any White House help."
I know this article is a few weeks old, but I only came across it when I was looking at the Federalist Society page today. You can probably guess how amusing they find all this. If you poke around on their webpage, you'll see all kinds of advertisements for their symposia, the guest speakers for which include judges, senator, law professors, authors, practicing attorneys, leaders of non-profits and think tanks, and about anyone else who is interested in issues of Constitutional interpretation. To characterize it as some secret society is patently ridiculous.
"Nefarious Ties
Harvard, the Federalist Society and other "subversive" affiliations. Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Wall Street Journal
The reasons to worry about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts continue to accumulate. First we learned he attended Harvard, which is always suspicious. Then the New York Times informed us that his wife, who is also a Catholic lawyer, not only worked pro bono for Feminists for Life but has in the past "attended Mass several times a week." Holy mackerel.
Then yesterday brought the Washington Post's scoop that Judge Roberts may once have been a card-carrying member of the Federalist Society. Mr. Roberts has said that he doesn't recall belonging to the lawyers' outfit. But in the best tradition of Woodward and Bernstein, Post reporters dug through the society's "secret" enrollment lists and--there it was, in black and white, the name of John Roberts, member 1997-98. This news actually made page one.
The Post's exposé continues: "The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by conservatives who disagreed with what they saw as a leftist tilt in the nation's law schools. The group sponsors legal symposia and similar activities and serves as a network for rising conservative lawyers." That's a subversive group if there ever was one, not least because we've seen with our own eyes that representatives of the ACLU have sometimes attended these public "symposia," and without disguising their identities.
We don't know whether these news stories illustrate the desperation of liberals who can't find any real mud to throw at Judge Roberts, or whether they've been planted by the White House to make liberals look silly. Come to think of it, liberals these days don't need any White House help."
I know this article is a few weeks old, but I only came across it when I was looking at the Federalist Society page today. You can probably guess how amusing they find all this. If you poke around on their webpage, you'll see all kinds of advertisements for their symposia, the guest speakers for which include judges, senator, law professors, authors, practicing attorneys, leaders of non-profits and think tanks, and about anyone else who is interested in issues of Constitutional interpretation. To characterize it as some secret society is patently ridiculous.
posted by Maureen at
10:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home