SacTown's Newest Friend
 

:D
SacTown's Newest Friend

(Hey, He likes peanuts. can't be all that bad of a guy - i like peanuts too!)


Printer friendly pageJohn G. Roberts, Jr.Gender: Male
Race/Ethnicity: White
Status: Confirmed (Nominated: January 2003; Confirmed: May 2003)
ABA Rating: Well Qualified (WQ)
Circuit: District of Columbia Circuit
Home State: Maryland
Category: Bush Contributor, Bush/GOP Campaign, No Judicial Experience, Bush Admin. Official, Lobbyist
Financial Disclosure Statement: download PDF
Senate Questionnaire: download PDF
Employment/background:
2003-present: Judge, DC Circuit Court;
1993-2003: Partner, Hogan & Hartson LLP;
1989-93: Principal Deputy Solicitor General, US DoJ;
1986-89: Associate, Hogan & Hartson LLP;
1982-86: Associate Counsel to the President, White House Counsel's Office;
1981-82: Special Asst to the AG in the US DoJ;
1980 -81 Supreme Court of the United States, Law Clerk to Hon. Wm. H. Rehnquist

Law Firm Connection:
Hogan & Hartson LLP. is the oldest and the largest major law firm based in Washington, D.C with close to 1,000 lawyers practicing a wide range of corporate law. Hogan & Hartson served as counsel in a number of significant international and domestic operations, including the largest private-public venture in South American history (firm website).

Clients:
Robert's Hogan & Hartson clients included large and small corporations, state and local governments, trade & professional organizations, nonprofit associations, and individuals. Examples include States of Hawaii & Alaska, Litton Industries, the National Collegiate Athletic Associationm the Credit Union National Association, Pulte Corporation, and Intergraph Corporation.

Federalist Society Connection:
Member

Legal Special Interest Connection:
Member, National Republican Lawyers Association;
National Legal Center for the Public Interest*, Legal Advisory Board Member (with C Boyden Gray and Ken Starr)

*NLCPI newsletters promote regulatory and tort reform. Board members include corporate leaders from companies like Dow Chemical. (NLCPI website).

In the News:
A 2002 article in a cattle industry publication says that Roberts served as a lawyer for Nebraska Cattlemen Inc. in a case pitting the group, along with the National Cattlemens Beef Association, and the Department of Justice against cattle producers.The plaintiffs wanted to opt out of a mandatory fees marketing program that was established in a 1985 farm bill. (Feedstuffs, 07/29/02)

Roberts's name appears on the government's brief defending the gag rule under which federally funded family-planning clinics were barred from offering abortion counseling. The brief (Rust v. Sullivan) argued in passing, as the Bush administration contended at the time, that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In another case, Mr. Roberts argued for the government that the activities of abortion protesters did not constitute discrimination against women. (Washington Post, June 7, 2001)

As a former deputy solicitor under the first President Bush, Roberts successfully argued on behalf of the federal government in a 1990 Supreme Court case that private citizens do not have the right to sue over environmental violations unless they have been directly affected by the violation. (Environmental Magazine, December 31, 2003)


Net Worth: $3,782,275

Lobbying Activities:
Hogan & Hartson

• Western Peanut Growers Association-1996 (Source: Opensecrets, Federal lobbying records)
  -Roberts was paid up to $20,000 by WPGA to lobby.
  -He lobbied for The Warehouse Storage Loan Program and the Peanut Price Support Program.
  -Throughout the year, he contacted the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. House of Representatives.
• Panhandle Peanut Growers Association-1997
  -Roberts was paid up to $10,000 by PPGA for lobbying.
  -He lobbied for The Warehouse Storage Loan Program and the Peanut Price Program.
  -He contacted the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. House of Representatives.
• Western Peanut Growers Association-1997
  -WPGA paid <$20,000 to Hogan and Hartson (lobbyist unknown)
• Panhandle Peanut Growers Association-1998
  -PPGA paid <$20,000 to Hogan and Hartson (lobbyist unknown)
• Western Peanut Growers Association-1998
  -WPGA paid <$20,000 to Hogan and Hartson (lobbyist unknown)

Political Activity:
Executive Committee, DC Lawyers for Bush-Quayle '88
Member, Lawyers for Bush-Cheney

Bush Administration Ties:
Executive Committee, DC Lawyers for Bush-Quayle '88
Member, Lawyers for Bush-Cheney

Campaign Contributions:
Richard Lugar (R-IN) - $500 (2000)
George W Bush - $1000 (2000)
Hogan & Hartson PAC - $5675 (1993-2000)
Peter G Fitzgerald (R-IL) - $1235 (1998)
Peter Rusthoven (R-IN) - $1000 (1997-98)

It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

He is certainly well qualified. Being that he was confirmed to his current position on an appeals court without much opposition and even members of the Clinton administration have signed a letter urging his confirmation (I don't know who - I just read it), I would hope that it won't be long and drawn out. Something tells me it will, though, as it would be with any candidate, sadly.

I'll be interested to see how this goes. I know next to nothing about him, so I'm not qualified at this point to offer an opinion.

An AP article does note that as an attorney he argued both sides of many issues -- affirmative action, antitrust, etc... In general, that's the sort of experience that would demonstrate an ability to examine all sides of a case.

In contrast, I'm not sure I would be supportive of a nominee who had a record of only taking one side in practice, as I would be suspicious of the dreaded "agenda."

I made a new friend already? Wow, that was fast...i wasn't expecting to make a new friend until next week. At least I've forgotten all about Karl What'shisname.

You know, Clinton is NOT lord and savior of the Democratic Party. He's a charismatic guy who did some good things, but hearing, "Clinton agreed with it, so they all should" is getting old.

Funny- I did not think that was what he said at all- I read it as just a comment that this nominee might not be as controversial as some people may think- he also said some members of his administration signed it- not Clinton himself.

And it's a shame he can't save the party- but then I don't think anyone can at this point.

It's not the individual comment, it's the fact that he can't go 3 posts without mentioning him. It's old.

The real problem with mentioning "he who must not be named" is that it brings up bad memories for many on the left...........It has got to be a bit embarressing for the intellectual set to have to look back and hang all of their recent "successes" with this bumpikin from bright red Arkansas :D In fact, when was the last time a non-red state dem held the highest office :confused:/ ;)

:cheers:

Humm it looks like moveon.org has a slightly diffrent version of this guy... :)

Apparently he hates clean air, loves strip mines, hates that YOU have a right to vote and thinks the government knows best when it comes to an individuals uterus.

Good thing he's a moderate, I’d hate to see what a staunch conservative would do to the court….

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

Interesting note- Ann Coulter doesn't like him-
Link

Reagan was a California Democrat before senility set in...does that count?

Who peed on your cheerios this morning? :rolleyes: :mad:

Good lord, the whole issue with the nomination process, as put forth by the democrats, is that we need someone who is not a "right wing extremist". My point, should you wish to open your eyes and see it, is that since many involved the most recent democrat administration, associated with who the President was at the time, does not see him as anything close to that. However, Kennedy, Schumer, and other left wing extremists will most certainly try to paint him in a bad light.

Also, my point had nothing to do with Clinton himself if you bother to read it. I don't know and don't care what Bill Clinton thinks of Roberts. I referred to members of the Clinton administration. So get off your condescending high horse.

Playing a role in the theft of an election doesn't make him a right-wing extremist? What does he have to do to earn that designation...bomb an abortion clinic?

And here I thought the question about what kind of bait was required would be answered in the "one big fish" thread.....

Heh, baiting a loyal Republican...establishing Roberts' bona fides as a Bushie extremist, what's the diff? :D



Not that I'm questioning his credentials as an advocate and jurist, mind you.

Conservative mentioning Clinton- old and tired and irritating
Liberal bitching about a so called "stolen" election (that never happened) - noble and determined

I stand in awe of the lib double standard- you guys have it down to a science- or at least a severely whacked out conspiracy theory.

Noble? There's nothing noble about my anger, sister; I want vengence but I'll settle for justice -- and I'll get neither.

Can you even comprehend what happened in Florida? "Hey old man...hey ******...hey scumbag poor person, your vote means nothing. You mean nothing. You are nothing". That's not America (Or maybe it is and I'm just too stupid to understand).

GD being tired of seeing Clinton mentioned in every political debate and me being angry about a boot on democracy's throat is a double standard? Explain.

vBulletin Message
You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Nephythys again.


:snap:

Spiffy- except that it did not happen. They found no proof of people being intimidated, turned away or disenfranchised- and most of the complaints came from democratically controlled counties.

Oh I comprehend- very well thanks. I understand that you are still stewing in a vat of anger and hatred over something that never happened- but if it comforts you to believe in such things- go ahead, I could never stop you. I understand that you come from a place of such class envy, and a place where everyone is a victim.....you and I will never be able to agree or even discuss things because we live on different planets.

I am just as sick of seeing you fume about a conspiracy about a "stolen" election that was never stolen.

I have to consider the audience and venue-

I have no such restrictions- LOL :snap:

Except, Nephy, I didn't mention Clinton - I referred to individuals who served in his administration. I did that because I read AP stories saying people in his adminstration had come out in support of Roberts.

And actually, I love it when the 2000 election continues to be brought up. The middle of the country knows sour grapes when they see them and it just pushes them away from the dems.

Sour grapes? I never supported Al Gore's campaign for president.

Dem? I have never been a registered Democrat and I would have voted for John McCain if the FundiFools, in their never ending search for a savior, hadn't fallen for an immoral turd in righteous clothing during the primaries.

What a bizzare, and scary, time we live in when anyone left of the far far far far right is considered a liberal or a Democrat.

If you read my original post- I did mention that myself Leo. You did not mention Clinton- and the reaction was kneejerk and meant to gut your opinion.

The dems have nothing to offer except those sour grapes, hostility and division- the day they set aside irrational hatred and start offering viable alternatives- then maybe they will not be so entirely irrelevant.

And the reps apparantly have nothing to offer but to imply that if you're a liberal and disagree with Clinton or one of his administration then you're a hypocrite.

Registered or not- you kick out their most venomous talking points, conspiracies and attacks as if they are second nature.

So, are we going to discuss the judicial nominee here or just make sweeping statements about groups of people we don't like?

OK, I believe you. However, I would suppose that most people who do continue to bring it up are on the far left, such as Soros, Dean, etc. I believe the effect is the same, so it doesn't bother me.

I would agree with your second statement quoted above - however, I consider it sad that someone with great judicial credentials will be attacked by Schumer and Kennedy because he is somewhere right of the far far far far left.

Maybe we have a different definition of judicial credentials.

What about his judicial record is so great? He's only been a judge since 2003. True, he's been involved in the business of law for quite a few years, as law clerk, lobbyist and partner. Is that what you find so attractive about him?

Well, that and his experience with stealing elections.

*ducks*

You're so bad Haha

He has argued many cases before the supreme court, winning a decent percentage.

He has a reputation as a brilliant legal thinker.

He is widely respected by both sides of the political spectrum. More so on the right than on the left, but that's because he is a solid conservative and originalist.

I really don't want to see a huge fight. I get as sick of it as the next guy.

As far as helping steal an election, for those that want someone along the lines of O'Connor, that fits right in, then. :) Of course, Ted Olson might have been a good choice along those lines, too.

62%, wasn't it?

He'll go in. He'll get questioned but he'll go in.

I wish he had more experience as a judge, though.

Actually I'm surprised Mr. Bush didn't pick someone much more controversial to pull some pressure off the Rove story

Well, they did move the announcement up by almost two weeks to try to knock it out of the news.

I think that this is about as moderate a choice as we could ever hope to expect out of Bush and bitching about him isn't going to do much good anyway. He is going to get confirmed. Let's not take too much attention away from Rove and Co. The story is getting far more interesting each day. Meanwhile, we can prepare for what is going to be a huge battle when Rehnquist steps down.

Actually, I'm hoping that Schumer and Kennedy and Boxer go so nuts during hearings that it's like the boy who cried wolf, so that when they're done, Ann Coulter could get Rehnquist's spot. :evil: (I am quite disappointed with Ann, though, as I think bush made a fine choice and she has been very critical.)

Ann? Critical?

That's the plan, is it? Hope the left shoots its wad fighting against what passes for a moderate in this strange new millennium and then punch 'em in the mouth when Rehnquist retires. Crafty. Or not.



Oh, and someone should tell Roberts to not take it personally -- Ann doesn't really like anybody. Frankly, it's the only aspect of her I find appealing. I'd do her but it'd be one of those "why are you still here?" type deals.

Heh heh, isn't that what politics is about - it's never about the issues, but who wins

The issues are boring. Give me a 15 second sound bite from some Senator talking about Nazis. And a little T&A from the news anchor, please.

I would be very surprised if they do. Sure they will ask some tough questions, especially considering the anti Roe vs. Wade remarks he has made but ultimately, their best bet would be to quickly approve him without much of a ruckus. It's not worth it just yet. Besides, Rehnquist doesn't seem ready to go anywhere for a while, even though Robert Novak keeps trying to report that he is. Maybe Rehnquist will stick it out for another 3 years and Roberts will end up being more moderate than anyone realizes. Stranger things have happened and that would be fun to watch. :)

Yeah, MBC - the dems best strategy, as I see it, is to approve Roberts without any votes against. This way, should Rehnquist (or Stevens, for that matter) retire, they can oppose anyone vehemently with Roberts as evidence that they don't just oppose everyone Bush offers up.

Wow I feel like we should light a candle together or something

Plus...the quicker they approve Roberts the quicker they can get on with the real business of the country..........picking on Rove ;)

Yeah, all he did was endanger peoples lives, probably lie to a grand jury, and destroy a career of someone's wife as payback for the supreme crime of telling the truth. Why can't people just leave the poor sap alone?

Sigh.

Guess I'll post here what I posted in the Rove thread.

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

You left part of the "conclusion" out, or rather, the RNC talking points leave part of it out.

The conclusion doesn't sound very conclusive to me. This quote is as cherry-picked as the data that supposedly supported the claim that Iraq saught nuclear materials from Iraq.

However, none of the above has anything to do at all with the judicial appointment to the Supreme Court.

Way to start a hijack, Sleepyjeff! ;)

lol......funny, in the Rove thread I was hijacking it away from Rove now I am hijaking it to him in this thread :D (ain't I a stinker?)

Way to keep those libs off balance, Sleepy!

You must have learned how to change the subject from watching Scott McClellan. ;)

He was the master :)

In other words, something like this?

Ha, Ha.......:)

I still wanna know what the NY Times is hiding in the Rove case. Why won't they let their reporter tell and therefore get her out of jail? They sure have a lot of "concern" about her, saying the prison food just doesn't agree with her and such.

If it was Rove, they'd tell in a heartbeat.

I still wanna know what the White House is hiding in the Rove case. Why won't they let their spokeswoman tell and therefore get Rove off the hook?

If it wasn't Rove, they'd tell in a heartbeat.

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4763410/detail.html

Commenting on specifics of an ongoing investigation is not a good thing to do ever.

True, Leo. But let me point out that the no comments are a new thing. The White House had plenty to say about this investigation before the details (and sources) started to emerge.

Heh, how could the Times prevent her from talking?

You make an interesting point. Just who is Iraq war advocate Judith Miller protecting?

hey Sac, aren't you going on that vegetable oil tour of america bus ride with jane?

Only if we get to stay at the Hanoi Hilton.

Ha - funny. But that's my point. I have no doubt that if she could implicate someone in the Bush administration, she would in a heartbeat. I rather think it is someone that the NY Times doesn't want to reveal - perhaps because it is someone they support politically or perhaps it is simply as benign as it taking heat off Rove.

I don't understand at all why you would think this. Judith Miller is no enemy of this administration. Rather, she has been a very effective tool for them. Just because someone writes for the NY Times, doesn't make them a friend of the liberals.

Where's her Medal of Freedom?

maybe it's like a Hidden Mickey

The Corndog of Freedom

slicked up with jane's vegetable oil