| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2005 11:02:22 AM |
| Object: |
white house refuses request for roberts documents |
as i predicted on the day roberts was nominated:
Officials Deny a Request for Roberts Documents
By Carl Hulse and Neil A. Lewis
The New York Times
Saturday 06 August 2005
Washington - The Bush administration on Friday formally rejected a
Democratic request for documents from the years Judge John G. Roberts Jr.
served as deputy solicitor general, setting up a potential confrontation
over material Democrats say is essential to a thorough examination of Mr.
Roberts's Supreme Court nomination.
In a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking
Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said it would
withhold information sought by Democrats related to the legal advice Mr.
Roberts gave under the first President Bush, as he helped develop the
government's legal position on a variety of cases from 1989 to 1993.
"It is simply contrary to the public interest for these documents to
be released," said the letter signed by Rebecca Seidel, a deputy
assistant attorney general, on behalf of William E. Moschella, assistant
attorney general for legislative affairs.
The Justice Department letter said that such material had been
protected in the past under attorney-client privilege and that releasing
it would set a dangerous precedent and inhibit the agency's lawyers from
frank discussions of pending cases.
"The office simply could not function effectively if its lawyers were
asked to provide full and candid advice in spite of the expectation that
their work product would be fair game in any subsequent Senate
confirmation process," the letter said.
The decision had been foreshadowed by the administration late last
month, but Democrats immediately expressed strong disappointment.
"These records are important because they are a window on Judge
Roberts's approach to the constitutional rights that are the birthright
of every American - rights that touch all our lives in so many ways every
day," Mr. Leahy said in a statement.
He and other Democrats said the stance was typical of an
administration they criticize as failing to be open with Congress. Under
Mr. Bush, the refusal of the White House to hand over documents requested
by Senate Democrats has prompted the Democrats to block Senate approval
of some nominees, including Miguel Estrada to a judgeship on a federal
appeals court and John R. Bolton as United Nations ambassador.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior
member of the Judiciary Committee, said that he regarded the Justice
Department letter as "the opening salvo" in negotiations over the
documents and that its position was wrong because similar papers had been
released in the past.
"The fact that the letter is from a third-level official in the
Justice Department gives me some hope that the attorney general is
reserving his options, as all attorneys general before him have done," he
said.
Earlier Friday, Mr. Kennedy released a letter he had written to Judge
Roberts, noting that his recent responses to a committee background
questionnaire played down his work in the solicitor general's office
while it was highlighted on a résumé that Mr. Roberts submitted in 1991,
when he was first up for a federal judgeship.
Mr. Kennedy asked that Judge Roberts "submit as promptly as
possible" a supplement to his earlier responses to the committee, by
providing "a full description of your activities" as a deputy solicitor
general.
In a separate letter to President Bush, Mr. Kennedy complained that
the administration has apparently leaked other documents to the news
media in an effort to influence the public portrayal of the nominee while
failing to meet Democratic requests for the same information.
The complaint about selective disclosure was prompted by the White
House's release to The Washington Post on Thursday of two memorandums
written by Judge Roberts when he worked as an associate White House
counsel under President Ronald Reagan. The release was a partial response
to a Freedom of Information Act request.
In the first memorandum, written March 1, 1985, Mr. Roberts is asked
by a White House official how to respond to a request for President
Reagan's help on a bill in the Kentucky Legislature that would require
each public school to display a plaque saying both "In God We Trust" and
another slogan giving thanks to God for the liberties Kentuckians enjoy.
Mr. Roberts told the White House official that the person making the
request should be told that the proposal raises "concerns" about the
Constitution's prohibition against entangling the government with
religion and that "the president should not gratuitously opine on the
constitutionality of this specific question."
The second memorandum, written by Mr. Roberts on Feb. 10, 1986, is a
proposed reply to Representative Roman Mazzoli, then a Kentucky Democrat.
Mr. Mazzoli, a staunch opponent of abortion, asked about the president's
views on pardons for people convicted of bombing abortion clinics. Mr.
Roberts wrote that the White House should reply over the signature of a
more senior lawyer that "the president has no intention of granting
special treatment in the pardon process to those convicted of violence
against abortion clinics."
Dana M. Perino, a White House spokeswoman, did not respond directly
to Mr. Kennedy's complaint, but said: "Judge Roberts is someone confirmed
to the US Court of Appeals without a single objection on the Senate floor
in 2003. He is known by many members of the Senate, and they will make
their decision about his nomination to the Supreme Court based on his
record, experience, qualifications, and his judgment."
With a potential showdown looming over the documents, Democratic
members of the committee sought to reassure their colleagues on Friday
that their push for greater disclosure of information related to Judge
Roberts's tenure as a deputy solicitor general was driven by a legitimate
need for information rather than an effort to pick a political fight.
"The hearings before the Judiciary Committee will be the best
opportunity for the Senate - and the American people - to learn about
Judge Roberts," committee Democrats said in a letter sent to all
senators. "It is too important a decision to rush through without careful
consideration and the necessary information."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080605Z.shtml
.
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hirn" |
|
| Title: Re: white house refuses request for roberts documents |
06 Aug 2005 11:59:04 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns96AA7A79A89A0keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
as i predicted on the day roberts was nominated:
Officials Deny a Request for Roberts Documents
By Carl Hulse and Neil A. Lewis
The New York Times
Saturday 06 August 2005
Washington - The Bush administration on Friday formally rejected a
Democratic request for documents from the years Judge John G. Roberts Jr.
served as deputy solicitor general, setting up a potential confrontation
over material Democrats say is essential to a thorough examination of Mr.
Roberts's Supreme Court nomination.
In a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking
Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said it would
withhold information sought by Democrats related to the legal advice Mr.
Roberts gave under the first President Bush, as he helped develop the
government's legal position on a variety of cases from 1989 to 1993.
"It is simply contrary to the public interest for these documents to
be released," said the letter signed by Rebecca Seidel, a deputy
assistant attorney general, on behalf of William E. Moschella, assistant
attorney general for legislative affairs.
The Justice Department letter said that such material had been
protected in the past under attorney-client privilege and that releasing
it would set a dangerous precedent and inhibit the agency's lawyers from
frank discussions of pending cases.
"The office simply could not function effectively if its lawyers were
asked to provide full and candid advice in spite of the expectation that
their work product would be fair game in any subsequent Senate
confirmation process," the letter said.
The decision had been foreshadowed by the administration late last
month, but Democrats immediately expressed strong disappointment.
"These records are important because they are a window on Judge
Roberts's approach to the constitutional rights that are the birthright
of every American - rights that touch all our lives in so many ways every
day," Mr. Leahy said in a statement.
He and other Democrats said the stance was typical of an
administration they criticize as failing to be open with Congress. Under
Mr. Bush, the refusal of the White House to hand over documents requested
by Senate Democrats has prompted the Democrats to block Senate approval
of some nominees, including Miguel Estrada to a judgeship on a federal
appeals court and John R. Bolton as United Nations ambassador.
Speaking as a long-time liberal Democrat, the news about John Roberts'
confirmation is amusing. Many people, both Republicans and Democrats,
seem to forget that most times when someone is appointed to a seat on
the United States Supreme Court, they render decisions that could have
never been predicted based on their prior legal career.
The Republicans love to accuse the Supreme Court of being too liberal
and legislating from the bench, yet they forget that seven of the nine
justices on the court are Republican appointees. What's more, the Chief
Justice is very conservative and also a Republican appointee. The only
two predictable justices on the Supreme Court are Scalia and Thomas.
Look at Justice David Souter as a perfect example. He was nominated by
the first President Bush and yet his easily one of the more liberal
justices there. This is despite his seeming extremely conservative in
his legal career prior to serving on the Supreme Court. Souter is quite
a difference from Justices Thomas and Scalia, who were also nominated by
Bush, the elder. So there is no guarantee that just because a Supreme
Court Justice comes across as conservative during the confirmation
process, that he will make conservatives happy after he is confirmed.
If the Senate's Republican leaders had any sense, they would follow Ann
Coulter's advise, which is to investigate Roberts' background carefully.
But they don't have any sense, so I suspect the Republicans are going to
appoint a man who turns out to render decisions they will come to loath.
After all, from what I have heard of Roberts, he's a fairly strict
Constitutionalist. The Republicans who want to use government to intrude
on our personal lives seem to forget that nothing in the Constitution
allows them to do half the things they want. If the Republicans are
looking for an out on Roe v. Wade with Roberts on the bench, they had
better read the 9th and 10th amendments because Roberts does indeed seem
more of a Constitutionalist than a conservative, and the two are not the
same, despite what the conservatives would have us all believe.
My fellow liberals should simmer down. Roberts may very well be the most
liberal justice on the Supreme Court. Bush isn't hiding Roberts papers
only from Democrats, he's hiding them from rabid conservatives too.
Hiding information works both ways. I am willing to take my chances with
Roberts as a Supreme Court Justice because most times when someone with
an indistinct record on civil rights, the appointee usually turns out to
be very liberal. Why? Because the Constitution really is a liberal
document. If anyone should be nervous about Roberts, it should be the
far right conservatives, not the liberal left. All we have to do is
learn from our past. Fortunately, with the Republicans in charge and
their penchant for ignoring and often attempting to revise history, they
won't learn and they will make the same mistake they made when Souter
was appointed. I can say this out in the open because I know that
Roberts confirmation is really just a formality, at this point. Hidden
documents or not, Roberts will be confirmed, so there really is no point
in getting all bent out of shape amount it.
Go figure!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
