The Roberts Nomination: The Senate's Got Questions, He's Got Answers

Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the celebrated judicial hottie and Supreme Court nominee, has issued a written response to the detailed, 10-page questionnaire that was sent to him a week ago by the Senate Judiciary Committee. (His response can be accessed, as two separate PDF files, via this page.)

News articles about Judge Roberts's response to the Senate questionnaire are helpfully collected by Fred Barbash over at the Washington Post's great new blog, Campaign for the Supreme Court: The Politics and Strategy of the Appointment Battle. For opinion and commentary, check out LiveCurrent, the Los Angeles Times's excellent blog, stocked with some very impressive contributors.

Based on the news coverage, here are the juiciest bits of gossip, trivia, and personal information about Judge Roberts that can be gleaned from his Senate questionnaire response (Article III Groupie wisely leaves substantive analysis of his jurisprudence and legal paper trail to others):

--"John G. Roberts Jr. said in a questionnaire released yesterday that he was first interviewed as a potential Supreme Court nominee in April and was questioned by Vice President Cheney in May, showing that the White House had been focusing on him months before a seat came open." (WP, Mike Allen and R. Jeffrey Smith)

--"He said that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales interviewed him April 1, and that he met on May 3 with Bush confidants including Cheney, Gonzales, Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, White House counsel Harriet Miers and I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. Roberts said he was interviewed separately by Miers on May 23. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced on July 1 her decision to retire. Roberts said he had a telephone interview with Miers and deputy counsel William K. Kelley on July 8 and was interviewed by Bush on July 15, with Miers present. He said none questioned him about his views on any case or legal issue." (WP)

--"The 10-page questionnaire yielded 83 pages of response. It included information about Judge Roberts's financial assets and net worth -- nearly $5.3 million, including a stock portfolio worth more than $1.6 million..." (NYT, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David E. Rosenbaum)

--"Judge Roberts listed a stock portfolio worth more than $1.6 million that included well-known technology companies like Dell, Microsoft and XM Satellite Radio and about $1.7 million invested in mutual funds. He had more than $1.3 million in the bank, the report said. The only liability Mr. Roberts disclosed was a $790,000 mortgage on his house in Chevy Chase, Md.; he listed its value at $1.3 million." (NYT)

--"Though much has been made of his participation in the Federalist Society, Judge Roberts repeated that he had no memory of being a member, despite recent news accounts that in 1997 he was listed in society brochures as a member of the society's Washington Lawyers Steering Committee. 'I have no recollection of serving on that committee, or being a member of the society,' he wrote." (NYT)

--"In response to a question about any services he rendered to an election committee, Judge Roberts said he went to Tallahassee, Fla., in November 2000 to assist lawyers working on behalf of Mr. Bush. 'My recollection is that I stayed less than one week,' he wrote, adding that he recalled participating in a preparation session for another lawyer scheduled to appear before the Florida Supreme Court. He said he left, and then returned to Tallahassee 'at some later point' to meet with Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, the president's brother, 'to discuss in a general way the constitutional and statutory provisions implicated by the litigation.'" (NYT)

Good stuff! Article III Groupie has not yet read Judge Roberts's response, which weighs in at a hefty 83 pages. If you get to read the response before she does, please email her with additional interesting tidbits. Much thanks!

Comments

[Compulsive NYTimes Reader]

I hate the press. Roberts, at the end of his statement (which the Times released as a two-part pdf), he makes the usual broad references to his judicial philosophy, with the expected praises of modesty and restraint, and the press reads his answers as promises.

It's sort of like WestLaw headnotes on New York Appellate Division opinions - they just get it wrong a substantial amount of the time because the originals are just so juiceless and obscure.

Like I said, I hate the press.