Roberts Donated Money to Lugar's Campaign

[Geezah]

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts has donated to the political campaigns of several Republican candidates, including one senator who will vote on Roberts' appointment to the high court.

In recent election years, Roberts has contributed more than $3,700 to Republican candidates, including $1,000 to George W. Bush's successful bid for the presidency in 2000.

Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, gave $500 to the 2000 re-election bid of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., according to campaign contribution reports.

He also contributed $1,235 to the 1998 campaign of Republican Peter Fitzgerald, who defeated Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, a Democrat. Fitzgerald only served one term. Roberts gave $250 to Peter Rusthoven, a Republican who failed to gain the GOP nomination against Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., in 1998.

Much of Roberts' political giving was to his law firm's political action committee. He gave more than $5,600 to the Hogan & Hartson PAC, especially during the 1998 and 2000 election cycles.

In 1998, the Hogan & Hartson PAC made $111,800 in political donations, with more going to Republicans than Democrats. The same was true in 2000; Hogan & Hartson gave $67,000 to Republicans and $37,250 to Democrats.

Roberts' wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, also contributed $250 to Fitzgerald in 1998. The rest of her political contributions were to her law firm's political action committee. Mrs. Roberts is a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

She gave more than $4,000 to the firm's PAC. Unlike Hogan & Hartson, her firm favored Democrats over Republicans in campaign giving, contributing $126,750 to Democrats in 2000 and $78,550 to Republicans. In 1998, Shaw Pittman gave $76,350 to Democrats and $64,000 to Republicans.

Link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050720/D8BF7QM80.html)

This guy is a RINO, and is no friend to the firearm owning community! :(

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'm not liking the overt political tone that the confirmation has taken on. I mean, we all expected it - but in thinking about it, it really infuriates me. I was gonna start a thread on it - but it looks like this is as good a place as any, since it addresses the issue.

IMHO it is valid to grill a SC nominee about their views on the function & purpose of the SC, the role of the Constitution, Constitutional "originalism" vs ruling based on consequences/precedent/natural law, the extent to which stare decisis should be adhered to - y'know legal procedural stuff.

Their political leanings are completely irrelevant. In other words - I would have no problem putting a super-liberal on there, so long as procedurally, they were originalists - allowing the neutral objective criteria of the written Constitution to guide them (i.e. - not using their own personal biases to decide cases). If a leftie had a good record of deciding cases on the facts, and not wandering out in left field enumerating fictitious rights, I probably wouldn't have a problem with them.

To hear these Dem Senators talking about how Robert's personal opinions on abortion or privacy or car repair will define his qualification for the job just drives me nuts. The last time I checked, all Americans, and their spouses, had a right to think for themselves, to belong to civic organizations, and to give money to whatever political groups they wanted to. Does being a judge change that?

IMO we all get to be engaged in the political process - what defines a good judge is not what his political leanings are, but how little he allows that to interfere with his job.