Supreme Court nominee John Roberts
The White House implictly welcomed WorldNetDaily’s observation that while many pundits and news organizations are focused on U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ links to the Federalist Society, no such concern was expressed in 1993 about Clinton-choice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s overt activism on behalf of the ACLU.
Asked if he sees a double standard, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said he didn’t follow Ginsburg’s confirmation process.
But he replied wryly to reporter Les Kinsolving, “You’re welcome to point out those things if you so choose.”
Roberts has said he has no recollection of belonging to the Federalist Society, although many media outlets have treated it as an important story, pointing to his name being listed in an organizational leadership directory.
An Associated Press report said, “The question of Roberts’ membership in the society – an influential organization of conservative lawyers and judges formed the early 1980s to combat what its members said was growing liberalism on the bench – emerged as a vexing issue at the start of another week of meetings for President Bush’s nominee on Capitol Hill.”
The society describes itself this way: “It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.”
Ginsburg’s official court biography mentions she was a political director of the ACLU.
She was approved overwhelmingly, however, by the Senate.
“What an incredible double-standard we now have before us,” said WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah in a column. “It’s a matter of some concern that a nominee might belong to a group that believes the state’s job is to preserve freedom, believes in the separation of power and believes it is illegal and inappropriate for the court to make law. But it is not legitimate to be concerned about membership in a truly subversive group that undermines our most basic notions of individual rights and self-government.”