Roberts gave advice during Fla. recount

[DoYouEverWonder]

July 21, 2005

TALLAHASSEE - Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the president's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, made a brief appearance in Florida during the 2000 presidential recount - but he never signed up to represent any of the parties involved in dozens of lawsuits that erupted.

Roberts was one of several constitutional experts who visited Florida, a spokesman for Gov. Jeb Bush said. At the governor's invitation, Roberts traveled at his own expense and met once with the governor to share what Roberts believed the governor's responsibilities were under federal law in a presidential election dispute. Roberts was not paid for his advice.

<snip>

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Roberts gave "private legal advice" to the governor during the recount as a long-standing member of the Republican National Lawyers Association, while others reported that Roberts gave the governor advice on how to declare his brother the winner.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/21/State/Roberts_gave_advice_d.shtml


Lot's on denials in this article. Gee, we hardly knew him. Gee, he didn't even get paid. Gee, he only spoke to Jeb once. Everyone has an answer except the people that were actually involved. I just hope this comes up in his confirmation hearings. I really have a problem with someone becoming a Supreme Court Justice who doesn't believe in counting every vote.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Front page PBP - High court nominee advised Gov. Bush in 2000

At least the Palm Beach Post thinks this is a front page story. The St. Pete Times buried their version.

High court nominee advised Gov. Bush in 2000 election dispute
Thursday, July 21, 2005

President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts, came to Florida during the 2000 presidential election dispute and gave legal advice to Gov. Jeb Bush.

"Judge Roberts was one of several experts who came to Florida to share their ideas," said Jacob DiPietre, a spokesman for the governor. "The governor appreciated his willingness to serve and valued his counsel."

<snip>

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, seized on Roberts' recount role and urged the U.S. Senate to reject his nomination.

"President Bush's nomination of Judge Roberts threw salt on the wounds of the thousands of Floridians whose voting rights were disenfranchised during the 2000 election," Wexler said in a press release.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/nation/epaper/2005/07/21/m1a_flroberts_0721.html

[i miss america]

27. Please DU this poll +++++

in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel regarding the Roberts nomination.

South Florida congressmen and women are already weighing in, saying he's not the right person for the job. Please let them know they have the public's support.

The poll is halfway down on the right column. Thanks.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-apartisan21jul21,0,4244151.story?coll=sfla-news-sfla

[soup]

29. thanks.

Do they usually get this many responses?

2,489 when I voted.

[Booster]

33. Done & kick. Come on, FL, speak up and tell what you know.

[bigwillq]

37. Done

Is John G. Roberts Jr. the right person to fill the Supreme Court seat left open by Sandra Day O'Connor's departure?

40.0%
Yes (1081 responses)

43.7%
No (1182 responses)

16.3%
Too early to tell (442 responses)

2705 total responses



Thanks!

[mrdmk]

36. I found this line very interesting from this link

<snip>
"If the question is, 'Was John Roberts on the ground mixing it up and brawling with the rest of us in Florida?' the answer to that is 'No,' " said J.M. "Mac" Stipanovich, who was adviser to then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris.
<end of snip>

link
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/nation/epaper/2005/07/21/m1a_flroberts_0721.html

The GOP was definitely on a "mission" on this issue. A Brawl indeed.

edit: added link.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Yes "brawling" is a key word sort of like the mob

made up of congressinal aides that harrassed the vote counters to the point that they could not do their job. Well at least Roberts was not part of that, so he has that going for him.:sarcasm: On the other hand he obviously does not believe that Americans should have their votes counted, so he sounds like a good Republican, a piss poor American, but a mainstream Republican.

[KitchenWitch]

2. Another conflict of interest in this bogus administration

:nuke:

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Could Roberts 'free' advise

be a violation of election law if he or the Bu$h campaign didn't report this activity has a contribution?

[KitchenWitch]

4. I don't know

Sure sounds like something that ought to be researched.

Does donation of a service (consulting on the recount) fall under the same guidelines as donating actual money???

[annabanana]

5. I expect that his "advice" doesn't usually come cheap..

I wonder what he gets per "billable hour" under other circumstances.

[zanne]

34. The articles said he wasn't "paid".

But he's getting paid now, isn't he?

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. It should fall under the category of an 'In-kind contributiion"

Yet the only thing I've found in regards to the 2000 Recount was a $1000 contribution that Roberts gave to the Bush Recount Team.

[djg21]

50. What's good for the goose . . .

I practice law, and I do not know one lawyer active in Democratic party polics who also wasn't prepared to jump on a plane and go to Florida. And I don't even practice in D.C.

If this is all we got, we got NOTHING! Move on already. Roberts is going to be confirmed?

And pray tell, who do you thinbk would be nominated should we get him bounced -- another moron like Thomas? At least Roberts and an I.Q. more sizeable than a pubic hair.

[LiberalFighter]

41. Self Deleted... Question already answered

[Sydnie]

18. I believe that it would be a violation if not reported

That would include the airfare (if that was his only business there), actually any expense that would normally be billable if he were to perform that same service for anyone else under any other circumstances.

Well worth looking into.

[K-W]

15. Sorry, but how is this a conflict of interest? EOM

[DanCa]

7. And now the reason for the nominee becomes clearer (nt)

[Benhurst]

8. "I really have a problem with someone

becoming a Supreme Court Justice who doesn't believe in counting every vote."

Why, when that is already the position of the majority of the Supremes? :sarcasm:

[leetrisck]

9. Was he an advisor to Ken Starr on Clinton's

impeachment? He was Starr's asst solicitor general so I imagine he was up to his eyeballs in the impeachment. That was one of the problems with Miguel Estrada that nobody would talk about.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Roberts is obviously a partisan political ACTIVIST

This is the thing the repugs scream about all the time, Activist Judges. The worst place for any activist judge is the Supreme Court because the SC is the only Court that can make laws. No other court has this power.

[soup]

30. Good point. There's also the cries of 'Obstruction'

Feminist Daily News Wire
December 17, 2002
Bush to Stack DC Appeals Court with Far-Right Judges

In a continued effort to stack the court with far right extremists, the Bush administration plans to fill two seats on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit that have been vacant for years. Throughout the 1990s, Senate Republicans rebuked efforts by the Clinton administration to fill those seats – claiming that the judges were a waste of taxpayer funds because the court saw few cases, according to the Washington Post. The DC Appeals Court, the second most powerful in the country, currently has four vacant seats and a total of eight sitting judges – four appointed by Democratic presidents and four appointed by Republicans.>snip<

Bush has already named two nominees for the court – Miguel Estrada and John Roberts. Both were rejected by Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee but are expected to be approved in the 108th Congress under the new Republican Senate majority. Estrada has no record on reproductive rights, an absence of which the Feminist Majority and other women’s rights groups believe is cause for concern. He is a partner in the Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher law firm that represented Bush at the US Supreme Court during the 2000 post election legal fight. Roberts, who was first nominated by former President Bush, was a clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, former deputy solicitor general under Kenneth Starr and has been called “outspokenly conservative.”
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=7353

They used all the sauce on the goose, none left for the gander.

[Supersedeas]

45. the cabal has many tentacles

[IndianaGreen]

11. The fact that Roberts traveled to Florida at his own expense...

should be a BIG RED FLAG to us that this guy is a dangerous ideologue, a man that supported the destruction of 224 years of American democracy.

[IndianaGreen]

12. More about Roberts from the WSWS website

Roberts’ role on the appeals court is a continuation of his record as a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan and Bush administrations. As deputy solicitor general in the senior Bush administration, while serving under then-Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, he argued before the Supreme Court in opposition to abortion rights, in support of religious observances on school grounds, and in favor of criminalizing flag-burning as a form of political protest.

There is another item in Roberts’ resumé that points to the anti-democratic content of his political and juridical outlook and his role as a partisan of the Republican right. The Washington Post noted: “Roberts’ name did not appear on any of the briefs during the Florida presidential recount , but he gave critical advice on how the Florida legislature could name George W. Bush the winner at a time when force a different choice.”

In other words, Roberts supported the threat of the Republican-controlled Florida legislature to override the vote of the citizenry in order to install Bush in the White House. In the event, this was made unnecessary by the intervention of the US Supreme Court, which issued the infamous 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore that shut down the vote count and handed the White House to the Republican candidate.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/robe-j21.shtml

[LiberalFighter]

42. How much did Roberts contribute to gw*dipshit's campaign AND

to the recount???

[soup]

13. Wait a minute, that's Not True.

J.E.B.ushbush RECUSED himself during the recount. I know because he told us so. They even said it on TV. So why would Roberts need to advise him?

The Jeb factor

RAY SUAREZ: The governor of your state has officially recused himself in this process. But isn't he implicated at some point if the legislature serves up a slate of electors? Does he have to sign to authorize those electors?

LOIS FRANKEL: Well, Jeb Bush did recuse himself from the canvassing board, the state canvassing board, which I think was a good thing. But I don't think anybody should really think that he has stepped back. After all, George Bush is his brother, and you would expect him to be vigorously trying to get his brother elected. And I think behind the scenes he has been doing that. I just think it's unfortunate that the George Bush campaign would use the Florida legislature as an arm of their campaign. This is unprecedented -- really the first time in history that a legislature would try to do this after a lawful election. And I believe it's going to be met with distrust and frustration and disgust by voters across America and across the state. And I think it's just plain wrong for us to be doing this. And really I hope that my colleagues over the weekend will reconsider going forward with this special session.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/session_11-30.html

Sorry - I'm so angry right now, I could chew on a marshmallow and spit out a nail.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Yep, Bu$hCo we have a problem

Jeb RECUSED himself and claimed that he would not be involved in the Recount in any way. So why would he need advice on how to run the recount to get the decision he wanted?

I wish someone who knows about election law would weigh in. I think we have numerous violations here by the Bush Campaign, Gov Bush and even John Roberts.

[soup]

16. Remember he assured George that Florida was a done deal.

I don't ever want to be as angry as I was when all the garbage was flying in 2000, but it looks like it's going to be revisited.


"Let me make sure I understand," protested Bush, his victory speech in hand. "You're calling me back to retract your concession?"

"You don't have to get snippy about this," Gore protested.

"Let me explain something," Gore continued. "Your younger brother is not the ultimate authority on this."

Jeb Bush had reportedly assured the Texas governor in the wee hours of Wednesday morning that Florida was a done deal.

Asked about the call Wednesday, Bush said, "I was fully prepared to give a (victory) speech. Then he withdrew his comments, and here we sit."
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/08/election.president/

[seafan]

21. soup, I am right there with you.

Sorry - I'm so angry right now, I could chew on a marshmallow and spit out a nail.


White hot anger fuels me every day with these criminals.

To see this story detailing Roberts' legal advice to Jeb on how he could manipulate the Florida legislature to install electors for Bush before the recount might show that he lost, ON PAGE ONE ABOVE THE FOLD IN THE PALM BEACH POST TODAY makes me rejoice.

We now need to send this to Senator Nelson and other Dem Senators, to make SURE they know about it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/nation/epaper/2005/07/21/m1a_flroberts_0721.html

[soup]

24. from the article you cited-

>>Aside from his meeting with Gov. Bush, Roberts does not appear to have had significant dealings with any other major figures in the election dispute.<<

Oh, is That all? Well, gee, no reason to pursue this any further.

Pass the marshmallows.

[seafan]

25. Right on. We can all stop examining this now.

Ba$tard$.

[soup]

17. Does anyone have the date that Roberts was in FL? n/t

[Chi]

19. I scanned all 20 hits in Yahoo news, no mention of date. n/t

[soup]

22. Thank you for trying, Chi.

I'm not finding anything, either. Thought a date might make researching what specifically was going on at the time easier. One of those, 'the day after jeb consulted with Roberts, he made this statement' sort of thing.

thanks again for trying. :hi:

[xchrom]

20. lol -- judge roberts involved with the bush regime

even the one inflorida -- oh now there's a surprise!
not.
this is all so sick.

[blue northern]

23. So another Bush nominee that had a hand in Florida 2000

John "I'm here to stop the count" Bolton
and now it turns out Roberts was there as well.
Small world huh?

[i miss america]

26. The Miami Herald is also running with this on Page 1

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/front/12183379.htm

:mad: :kick:

[soup]

28. Florida hasn't forgotten.

Thanks for the link, i miss america. One of my first smiles today.

St Pete Times
Palm Beah Post
Miami Herald

Have the Tallahassee papers or the Tampa Tribune weighed in yet?

From the Herald:

>>Roberts gave GOP advice in 2000 recount

John G. Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, played a role in the chaotic, 36-day period following the disputed 2000 presidential election.

By GARY FINEOUT AND MARY ELLEN KLAS

[e-mail]

TALLAHASSEE - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts provided legal advice to Gov. Jeb Bush in the weeks following the November 2000 election as part of the effort to make sure the governor's brother won the disputed presidential vote.

Roberts, at the time a private attorney in Washington, D.C., came to Tallahassee to advise the state's Republican administration as it was trying to prevent a Democratic end-run that the GOP feared might give the election to Al Gore, sources told The Herald.<

>The reason that Roberts was tapped: His connection to Dean Colson, a lawyer with the Miami firm of Colson Hicks Eidson. Colson had been a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist at the same time as Roberts in 1980 and was best man at Roberts' wedding. Brian Yablonski, who was then a top aide to the governor, worked at the Colson law firm before he went to work with Bush.

Since the recount, the ties between the firm where Roberts worked at the time, Hogan & Hartson, and Florida's government has grown deeper, as Hogan & Hartson has taken on several high-profile legal jobs in the state. The firm, for which Roberts worked from 1986 to 1989 and again from 1993 to 2003, represents and lobbies the Legislature for the Scripps Research Institute, which was given $500 million by state and local governments to set up an operation in Florida.

When Roberts came to Tallahassee in November 2000, he outlined for the governor the formal process that needed to be followed once the Florida popular vote was certified for Bush. At least one book documenting the period, Too Close to Call by journalist Jeffrey Toobin, said Bush strategists feared Gore attorneys would try to block the state from sending the ''certificate of ascertainment'' -- the list of electors -- to the National Archives. That book documents the elaborate lengths to which the governor's staff went to ensure that the certificate -- which said Bush had won -- was not subpoenaed by Democrats and stopped in its tracks.<<

:insert string of curses here:

[antonialee839]

31. "Roberts was not paid for his advice". Yeah, he was on the

layaway plan.

[confludemocrat]

32. A thread like this is why I love DU (n/t)

[Skidmore]

35. Do we hear any objections from any Dem Senators

over this?

Sorry, folks, but I feel crabby today. The more I read and hear, the more disgusted and crabbier I get.

[rainbow4321]

38. Roberts and the Hamdan vs Rumsfeld case last week

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123055/

Roberts may indeed turn out to be a wise, thoughtful, and appealing justice. Tonight when Bush announced his nomination, Roberts talked about feeling humbled, which won him points on TV. But an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties. As a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections.

The opinion Roberts joined, written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph for a unanimous panel (though the third judge, Stephen Williams, expressed a reservation in a concurrence), swallows all of that and then some. The opinion says that Congress authorized the president to set up whatever military tribunal he deems appropriate when it authorized him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to fight terrorism in response to 9/11. While the president has claimed the authority only to try foreign suspects before the tribunals, there's nothing in the Hamdan opinion that stops him from extending their reach to any other suspected terrorist, American citizens included. This amounts to a free hand—and one Bush is not shy about extending. The administration has already devised its own tribunals to review its claims that the Guantanamo detainees are all enemy combatants who are not entitled to the international protections accorded to prisoners of war. As of February, 558 hearings had resulted in freedom for only three prisoners. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the legality of these tribunals—a question that Roberts may now help decide.

<snip>

At oral argument, Roberts appeared to recognize some of the weaknesses in the government's stance. In particular, he quizzed Hamdan's lawyers about the Charming Betsy principle of respecting international law. But none of the reservations he appeared to harbor then are reflected in the opinion he joined. So, what does that say about John Roberts? Did he decide that Judge Randolph had it right down the line in Hamdan, or did he sign on to a flawed and sweeping opinion because he was auditioning for the job Bush has now picked him for? Neither prospect is reassuring.

[Charles]

39. ?Practising 'LAW' w/o a license?

I may be wrong...

But unless Judge Roberts passed the Fla. Bar - or - is licensed there - regardless if he received a fee - - -

He was practising law W/O a license.

I think that's a no-no. No?

[TankLV]

40. Okayyyy! Contrary to my initial posts on this subject, I'm now also

not sure this guy is as "clean" as we are all lead to believe.

The more I hear about him, the more I dislike. This along with all th other information in the past couple days completely changes my opinion from not opposing him to opposing him.

But to be realistic, will ANYBODY these criminals propose be acceptable? Is there a list of ACCEPTABLE people that he would be likely to choose from?

Does anybody have any conservatives who ARE acceptable to us. We cannot expect him to NOT propose one conservative after another. IF anyone thinks that, they really are living in a fantasy land.

[The Judged]

43. Let the voice of the American people be heard!

Kindly consider a well organized and massive, nationwide petition which aims to clearly address the already widely disseminated Rove-eneque notion that Roberts is "judicially mainstream."

Of course, a state by state request from the American people to their elected Senators that aims to evoke a clear and agreed upon definition of "judicially mainstream" during televised Supreme Court nomination hearings would be most unwelcome to and discomforting for the President and his handlers whom have neatly packages Judge Roberts as some incontrovertible Supreme Court nominee.

Listen carefully to the sound of the Republican propaganda machine.

Be sure to notice every morsel of calculated press and publicity aimed at defining Judge Roberts as beyond reproach as a Supreme Court nominee.

Now that there is a claim that Judge Roberts is of a "judicially mainstream" philosophy, ask yourself what would be the intended effect of such a claim on the American public?

To be sure, it is intended to be a "take my word for it" assurance from those who have already breached and exhausted the American public's trust.

In terms of this administration, this type of assurance is more likely to end up with the uncovering of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

If not, then, I ask, why would the Republicans even need to make such a public portrayal of Judge Roberts as a Supreme Court nominee who is representative of the "judicial mainstream" when his past and record are out there waiting to be looked into?

Are they directing the audience again?

Is it the power of suggestion?

Is it the President's intent to create the American public's first impression of Judge Roberts, with the additional intent to then create the atmosphere that any contradictory notions about Judge Roberts that shall arise must now overcome that false first impression fed to the American public?

Republicans cannot help themselves when they predictably over-act and overreact to their opportunity to mold the "new and right" Supreme Court into their ideological pulpit, in this instance, by creating a false image of Judge Roberts.

Over-generalizations that defy clear and valid facts apparently will once again be said to be truths that are undeniable.

Good = bad, truth = lie, so is "judicially mainstream" = radical?

What do the American people think "judicially mainstream" means to them?

Let the Senators, one by one, stand and say so, while they hold in their hands the peoples' request of them to do so.

Let no question be thought to be foolish, if it is aimed at illustrating for the American public the substance of the judge that is being considered for a lifetime Supreme Court judgeship.

Let the American public demonstrate whether or not Judge Roberts is "judicially mainstream."

This can be done in a civil manner, because one can ask painful questions and derive facts without coming to heated argument, even in the face of complete hostility from Republicans.

Honorable Senators: Take the high road and treat Judge Roberts with utmost civility as you dissect his demonstrated character and soon to be discovered behavioral and intellectual contradictions.

He is a man, and no man is perfect.

But is the claim "judicial mainstream" what this nominee truly offers the American public?

If not, then the President and his people have created the argument that can bring down their nominee, because this promise has already been made to the American public.

Now, the American public is sure to be awoken, discover what has been promised to them, and demand that this presidential promise be fulfilled.

[soup]

46. What can I say?

Well done, The Judged.

Thank you for your post.

[The Judged]

44. bump n/t ... Request for action.

[Catt03]

47. This is just not right.

However, Floridians tend to have become entirely disinterested in what happens to and in their state.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

48. Kick, and the graphic from Michael Moore's front page