home

John Roberts' Financial Status

By Jeralyn, Section John Roberts
Posted on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 08:02:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The White House today said it will refuse to turn over Supreme Court Nominee John Robert's tax returns.

Courting Influence has his 10 page financial disclosure statement (pdf) from his 2003 application to the D.C. Circuit Appeals court, filed in May, 2004. Net Worth: $3,782,275.

Not bad for a lawyer who was only in private practice for 13 years of his career. Roberts was a government lawyer from the beginning of his legal career in 1979 until he left for Hogan & Hartson in 1986. He was an associate for a year, and then made partner. He left the firm to return to Government employ as Deputy Solictitor General in 1989. Total time spent in private practice at this point: 3 years. He left his job as Deputy Solictor General to return to private practice with Hogan and Hartson in 1993.In 2003, he was confirmed as a D.C. Circuit Appeals Court Judge.

Lobbying Activities for 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)
< Frist Cancels Spending Bill Hearing With Anti-Torture Provision | Iraq PM Calls for Speedy Withdrawal of U.S Troops >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    John Roberts' Financial Status | 40 comments (40 topical)
    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    I'm trying to remember -- is being born really smart a sign from God that you were meant to be rich? Or is it an indication that maybe you might have special responsibilities to do something for the benefit of others?

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Peter G, Or is it an indication that maybe you might have special responsibilities to do something for the benefit of others? You'd have to ask Roberts's adopted kids, I guess. TL, First it's that JR is dangerous cuz he's such a nice guy. Then cuz he actually upheld a law that he personally didn't like. Then cuz he once had his name on a steering committee that never met. And after that cuz he was such a successful lawyer (even tho all the other lawyers like him; that nice guy thing again). And now you wanna play go fish with his tax records. Uh huh. Roberts is good to go and both sides know it. BushHitler Shrub McChimp the moron has outflanked the Left again, proving Einstein right: everything's relative.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    dangerous cuz he's such a nice guy.
    please provide a link.
    cuz he actually upheld a law that he personally didn't like.
    please provide a link.
    hen cuz he once had his name on a steering committee that never met.
    I call BS, please provide a link. 'Steering committees' are not casual happenings, especially when they are the flagship chapter of a nationwide organization. Roberts lied. And maybe he was a member and maybe he did pay dues, only the FedSoc knows and they refuse to say. If he won't release his tax returns, what is he hiding? Perhaps tax deductible donations to the FedSec? The WH says a solicitor general has an attorney client priv w/ the pres!? Whoa, that takes gall, the repubs went all the way to the supremes to prove that the SolGen works for the people, not the pres. Of course that was under Clinton, so I guess IOKIYAR.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#4)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Old John Robert, has some bill money in the bush business and he is making like mad over the dead.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#5)
    by bad Jim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Oh, please. $3,782,275 is just peanuts.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#6)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Mr. Roberts salary as a federal judge is alone considerable ($1 million annually) - learned from NPR yesterday. Mr. Roberts 'comes from' money and has not strayed from that economic class.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#7)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    So we now oppose lawyers on the grounds that they make too much money? Does this go for all lawyers, all lawyers nominated for the bench, or only conservative lawyers nominated for the bench? And I just loved the Federalist Society BS. Can't wait until Hillary appoints her first judge and the right denounces them for being a rich member of the ACLU and PFAW. Once again, the plea for an end to gotcha blogging goes unsupported by those who made it.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    The simple response to criticism of being an ACLU member is...why aren't you too??? Given that the ACLU's sole mission is to defend the Bill of Rights, I don't see why any lawyer should ever be proud of not being in the ACLU.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#9)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    If it's the sole mission of the ACLU to defend the Bill of Rights, why does it waste so much time and effort on political campaigning? Why does it loan people out to staff campaigns? Why does it make donations to political coffers? All of which is irrelevant: The Federalist Society also fancies itself a defender of the Constitution. Would you accept as a response from Judge Roberts to a question about his alleged membership in that group "Why aren't you?" If so, great; at least you're applying an even standard. If not, why?

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Mr. Roberts salary as a federal judge is alone considerable ($1 million annually) - learned from NPR yesterday. What? According to the Office of Personnel Management, Circuit Judge Salaries are $164K annually as of 2003. Rehnquist makes just under $200K. Maybe you're thinking of what Hogan & Hartsen paid. Or you're just spreading misinformation for no apparent reason.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#11)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Given that the ACLU's sole mission is to defend the Bill of Rights, I don't see why any lawyer should ever be proud of not being in the ACLU.
    Someone's been watching too much TV. Isn't that an almost verbatim quote from the Michael Douglas/Annette Benning president movie?

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    You'd have to ask Roberts's adopted kids, I guess.
    -- Of course I admire John Roberts' and his wife's choice to adopt two children, ras. I just don't see what that has to do with how he's chosen to use his (unearned) gift of high intelligence. He did years of public service in his 20's and 30's, if you count his choosing to clerk for Rehnquist and then to serve Pres. Reagan in the White House and the Reagan and Bush administrations before the Supreme Court as public service (most lawyers would). I'd be interested to know (just as TL suggested, and didn't suggest anything more) how he became a multimillionaire in the ten years or so after that, or if he was already a multimillionare, then how that happens to be. And BTW, Kitt, you must have misheard something on NPR -- federal circuit judges don't make anything like $1 million annually; more like $175,000. And BTW, justpaul, the ACLU does absolutely no "political campaigning" (although it does lobby and do considerable public education work on legislative issues affecting civil liberties), does not lend (or "loan") staff to political campaigns, and makes no contributions to "political coffers." Your statements to the contrary are complete falsehoods. I'd be very curious to know what source you think you have for such calumny.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Mr. Roberts salary as a federal judge is alone considerable ($1 million annually)
    I don't know where you got that idea, but it certainly would come as a shock to many of the federal judges of my acquaintance. No, they don't get paid a million bucks a year.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#14)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Not too surprised to see the thread given the left’s dysfunctional relationship with money. Really, just how little money should someone have or how much charity should someone have done before they can interpret the constitution in a reasoned manner? “I just don't see what that has to do with how he's chosen to use his (unearned) gift of high intelligence.” Unearned? Good lord, this is just bizarre. I’ll speak up for intelligence earned or not; we need less stupid folks and more smart folks.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    The point isn't it's bad that he's a member of the FedSoc, (tho that would be a debateable topic), the point is that he lied about it. Also the point isn't whether he has $3Mil, but how he got it on a judge's salary. If I see a cop driving a ferrari, I wonder where he got the $$.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    NO doubt the same squealers over TL's mention of this are the same people who said, "Aha, GOTCHA!!" to the revelation that Valerie Plame "donated" money to an anti-Bush cause by (gasps of conservative horror) buying (something Repugs are not accostomed to) something from them. Tickets to a Bruce Sprinsteen concert, no less. Yes, that's news, but a SCOTUS nominee's tax records shouldn't be... Well, we all know that Anne Coulter is a "best-selling" author, so maybe the right does pay for things... At any rate, why isn't anyone from the right asking why, after generations of SCOTUS nominations, the Bushies are refusing to release his tax records? Why break with tradition? Aren't you retards all in love with that word? Bloody fools. Trolls, come get your daily handout...

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Um, actually, the news reports I saw last night indicated that he married well. The Mrs., also an attorney I believe, makes a pile of dough.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Too much salt, PPJ?

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    sarcastic unnamed one: So does that mean it's all kosher? You're rich, you could never be corrupt? What a relief...and you may have brought it up when Kerry the Gold Widower was being hammered for the same thing... Hypocrisy, thy name is commenting on TL...

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Just a point of information, blag ol' buddy, do with it what you will.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Just did... Marrying well is not a crime, nor should it disqualify you from the SCOTUS or POTUS positions... but the hypocrisy, on a day when the right is bleeting about Plame's concert tickets, is too much to bear... No, no one has a right to know how this dude earned his bones while working for the GOVERNMENT, but Plame's tickets are fair game? America's going down, and hard, if this is what passes for intelligent discourse nowadays...that's all Blagh is pointing out.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#22)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    BD- “…if this is what passes for intelligent discourse nowadays” When you set the bar so high … “Aren't you retards all in love with that word?” A bit manic today? I know it’s small, and it’s place on the world stage may seem a bit inconsequential in the shadow of the US, but perhaps you should be using all this (negative) energy to better things in your own country. Just a thought.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Uh, guys, it's not far fetched at all for him to have that kind of net worth if he spent a decade or so at "blue chip" D.C. firm. I'm not crazy about the guy (tho we could've gotten worse), but the financial stuff we're seeing doesn't concern me. Any lawyer who moves from being a partner at a firm like that to the bench is taking a major paycut.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#24)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    How much money someone is worth is irrelevant to their qualifications to sit on the Court. This guy spent many years working in government when he could have been making more money in private practice. When he was in private practice, he did well for himself. And maybe his wife comes from money and earns a lot herself. So what? I just don't get it. And there is no way in hell that a federal appeals court judge makes a million bucks a year. It's definitely somewhere between $100,00 and $200,000 a year.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    I know very little about Roberts per se, but I find two things very encouraging about the whole business: (1) This site and the rest of the far left is uncomfortable with him, and (2) his record is so clean that leftists are stooping to unfounded speculation about his income and loopy criticism concerning his use of that income. Looks good. Have I mentioned how much I like your pres? Guts, smarts, and the humility to let his opponents paint him as an idiot so he can repeatedly outmaneuver them. Basically Reagan without the actor's charisma.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    pigwiggle: Yes, Blagh's manic everyday, since you ask, and he thanks you for making light of his condition- pray you never feel one percent of what it's like to live in the bi-polar world... as for the completely called-for shot at Canada, Blagh has said many times he'll hold his country's flaws against yours anyday of the week...let him know when you wish to start... When did America abolish slavery? A whole generation after the Brits and Canadians? Yes, Canada had slaves too...about 300 for about 50 years...but you're right, you're better than us...after all, you stayed in the game until 1865 and even then held on to your quaint Jim Crow laws that survive today in Dixie, at least in spirit... Who is the only nation in the history of the world to use nukes on a civilian population? Which country now threatens all others with destruction if they even have a dream about uranium? Which country was it that sold arms to its sworn enemy? Which country invaded Iraq illegally? And is still there? Which country sent troops to defend America in Afghanistan and got four Canadian soldiers killed by a hopped-up American pilot who wanted to bomb "someone" and disregarded orders to pull back? And which country said "Thanks" to Canada by sweeping it under the carpet? Which country "thanked" Italy for their help in Iraq by shooting their journalists at road-blocks? Which country is run by Bush? Which country is run by Cheney? Rumsfeld? Rove? Anytime you're ready, piggle...

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    This is the whole problem...TL's Troll-filter is seriously broken... It's amazing that even "friends of America" can't make a comment on an American site dealing with American problems created by Americans without bringing the "God Bless America" worms out of the woodpile... If you all think that America's in great shape, folks, bless you all and keep your heads down. Anyone who takes umbrage at a non-American commenting that America seems to be pretty f#cked up right about now (because of certain people, not the whole nation) can fill Blaghdaddy's space...'cause every time he thinks it's safe to return to TL, he finds that the trolls are stilling running the cave... See you in a lifetime... Blagh

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    his record is so clean Clean and empty are not the same thing. Everyone should want to know more about a lifetime appointed judge. The repubs certainly applied a double standard to dem nominated judges. unfounded speculation about his income and loopy criticism concerning his use of that income. If he lied to the senate that's reason not to employ him. Why NOT release his tax records? Frankly the fact that he was a repub lobbyist should disqualify him. With all of the political decisions the court makes how many times would he have to recuse himself. OT, but does his wife's $$ show up as his networth?

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#29)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Just for background info, Supreme Court justices make far less than a million a year -- see this article. Partners at BigAss law firms, on the other hand, rake in the dough.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    I don't like the guy's politics, but I still have not heard enough to rally against him......

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#31)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    BD- “Yes, Blagh's manic everyday, since you ask, and he thanks you for making light of his condition-“ I wasn’t making light; rather I was dropping a hint. It was a more tactful way of saying you need to take some time out before you embarrass yourself with more of this confused jabbering. “It's amazing that even "friends of America" can't make a comment on an American site … if there's any justice in the world, America would have disappeared in a mushroom cloud years and years ago ... but there isn't, since it hasn't ... Aren't you retards …”

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#32)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    et al. Fair enough. My mistake. I was confusing my interest groups. But the general question still stands. There are plenty of people who think the Federalist Society is an honorable group fighting to defend the Constitution. As noted above, membership in such should not be a reason to oppose someone, even if your view of them differs, anymore than membership in the ACLU should be reason to oppose someone else. My apologies for getting my groups mixed up. Blahgdaddy, I don't know if you were referring to my comment when you referenced gotcha blogging, but it was Jeralyn who suggested it should end before she continued doing it. Personally, I thought she was right. Sadly, she seems to disagree. Oh well. It's not the first time we haven't seen eye to eye.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Posted by grad student: "(2) his record is so clean" Record? He has a record? Since when? He's almost entirely unqualified for the Federal Bench, much less the SCOTUS. "There are plenty of people who think the Federalist Society is an honorable group fighting to defend the Constitution." Oh sure! They're all signatories on the Project for a New American Century, though. Most of you lot take your Scaife-funds in the SUPPOSITORY form.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    "Other Federalist members tapped by Bush: Alex Acosta (Deputy Assistant Attorney General), Bradford Berenson (Associate Counsel to the President), Ralph Boyd (Assistant Attorney General), Michael Chertoff (Assistant Attorney General), Jeffrey Clarke (Deputy Assistant Attorney General), Paul Clement (Principal Deputy Solicitor General), Daniel Collins (Associate Deputy Attorney General), R. Ted Cruz (Associate Deputy Attorney General), Viet Dinh (Assistant Attorney General), Noel Francisco (Associate Counsel to the President), Sarah Hart (Director, National Institute of Justice), Brian Jones (General Counsel, Education Department), Brett Kavanaugh (Associate Counsel to the President), Theodore Olson (Solicitor General), Thomas Sansonetti (Assistant Attorney General), Eugene Scalia (Solicitor, Department of Labor; son of Antonin Scalia), Larry Thompson (Deputy Attorney General), and Edward Whelan (Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General)." Judge Roberts can't remember if he's a member!! If he's NOT, how did he get the assignment? It's government for the rightwing, by the rightwing, and not with the consent of the People. After all, the SCOTUS no longer protects American elections. It schedules their results via the FedSoc.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    justpaul, I don't object to roberts on his FedSoc membership, I object to his lying about it under oath. Can you say 'blue dress'?

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#36)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Sailor, Wouldn't that depend on what the definition of "membership" is?

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    Would "suckled Scalia's man-breasts" be enough 'definition' for you, jp? The guy is manufactured from FedSoc cloth. The same cloth they use to wipe down the gold bars, to wipe down Hallibrutal Dick's corporate hard-on, and to wipe down the brown smear down the middle of the Constitution they are committed to deleting.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    Continuing on the same train of thought, I find it encouraging that this thread was about Roberts' finances, and is now about his memberships and duration of service. So far as I know, there is no requirement for supreme court nominees to have any judicial history. And considering the recent Kelo decision (you know, the one in which the liberal justices voted to allow seizure of private property?) I suspect many ordinary citizens could do a better job. The fact that the left is so plainly uncomfortable with Roberts is a good sign. The fact that many of you are waffling from his income to his club memberships to his short record and even to the way his children dress shows real desperation. I like it. 3 asides: (a) Does anyone actually have anything coherent to hold against the Federalist Society? So far as I know they're just a group of conservative lawyers (like honest lawyers, these are a minority). (b) Granted, if Roberts lies under oath that would be an impeachable offense and a felony...sort of like that other famous case we all know of, in which most of you probably held the opposite position... But history aside, it's kind of unlikely he'd lie about something so innocuous, don't you think? (c) Does anyone know what Paul in LA is talking about? Does anyone even know what language he's speaking?

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    Any lawyer who moves from being a partner at a firm like that to the bench is taking a major paycut.
    And this is what scares me. I have a feeling that his motivation for taking that paycut is that he feels he is on a mission from God to make America the nation it once was... Goodbye Roe v. Wade.

    Re: John Roberts' Financial Status (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    Once again the point is that Roberts lied about being a member of the FedSoc. He was/is a member, that was proved by their membership directory and his inclusion on the steering committee. I DON'T care if he was a member, I care about his lying under oath. His tax returns, which every other supreme nominee has released, might (I stress MIGHT) show tax deductible donations to the FedSoc. They might also be embarrasing on many fronts, (e.g. did he have a nanny; did he declare her? ... etc.) The WH has seen his returns, and refused to release them. What are they hiding? grad, yes, PinLA is speaking english. His understandable outrage may seem over the top to you and others, but his points are valid.

    John Roberts' Financial Status | 40 comments (40 topical)