Does he have anything to hide???

D

denfoote

New member
I dunno!!

Feel free to speculate!!

Ann Coulter seems to have reservations about the nomination.

Frankly, this raises some red flags with me as well!!

White House Won't Show All Roberts Papers By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Bush administration does not intend to release all memos and others documents written by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts during his tenure with two Republican administrations, a White House representative said Sunday.



Fred D. Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who is guiding Roberts through the nomination process on behalf of the White House, said material that would come under attorney-client privilege would be withheld.

He said previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have followed that principle.

A leading Senate Democrat disputed the assertion that privacy was at stake and called such a position a "red herring."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said requests for documents would be considered on a case-by-case basis from the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider the nomination.

"There is often an accommodation that is reached with respect to requests for information, and I suspect that's going to happen in this case," Gonzales said on "Fox News Sunday."

The committee has yet to make a request. But some Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have urged the White House to release such documents "in their entirety."

Roberts worked in the Reagan White House counsel's office from 1982-1986. Roberts also was principal deputy solicitor general in the administration of the first President Bush.

"We hope we don't get into a situation where documents are asked for that folks know will not be forthcoming and we get all hung up on that," Thompson told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., said other nominees, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, have provided material they wrote in confidence while working in the Justice Department.

"There's so much precedence for that," said Leahy, the senior Democrat on the committee.

"It's a total red herring to say, 'Oh, we can't show this.' And of course there is no lawyer-client privilege. Those working in the solicitor general's office are not working for the president. They're working for you and me and all the American people," he told ABC's "This Week."

The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said documents could be an important part of the confirmation process when little is known about a nominee.

Roberts now is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Nominated by Bush on Jan. 7, 2003, Roberts was confirmed by the Senate for that court on May 8, 2003.

"When you look at John Roberts, who has risen to the highest levels in terms of the practice of law in private sector and public sector, I think there have been important questions raised about things that he said and things that he wrote when he was working for the government," Durbin told NBC.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said he thought some documents about work Roberts did in the solicitor general's office probably could be turned over, but not material when he was one of the lawyers for the first President Bush.

"If we're going to set a precedent that those communications between someone who works for the president and the president of the United States are some day going to be made public, I think it could have a real chilling effect on the kind of candor in communications that people would have with the president," McCain said on ABC.
Click to expand...
 
No news there, den. That's SOP in the case of attorney-client privilege and Gonzales has already hinted that an accomodation might be made.

The problem is simple:
If he had a voluminous track record, the Dems would have attacked that; in his case they'll attack the fact that he doesn't have a voluminous track record to attack (and they'll take it one step further by attacking Roberts' wife's views from the sidelines).

No matter. I'm betting he's in handily.
Rich
 
Simple. There are new federal laws regarding privacy and confidentiality that weren't law when others were nominated. I see no effort at obfuscation. The laws are being observed.
 
But some Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have urged the White House to release such documents "in their entirety."
Click to expand...

You mean like Kerry released his military and divorce records in entirety? :confused:
 
A little information would be nice!!
I'd hate to support this guy only to find out that he did not believe the 2nd amendment was an individual right, like Judge Bork did (I bet you didn't know that, did you)!!!
 
Den-
In another thread, Anitipitas posted a link to one of his rulings regarding search and seizure. He took a decidedly conservative stance on it...read the 4th pretty literally.

One decision does not portray an entire philosophy, but that's as good as its gonna get, I think.
Rich
 
Red Flags

Red flags...hmmmm. That sounds a little suspicious to me. Why "Red"? And doesn't Rove spell his first name with a "K"???? Plenty to think about...

Buddy
 
There is another aspect to this that many either aren't aware of or just plain don't know.

As the Chief Deputy SG, you have to submit your legal briefs to the SG for approval. Most times these are simply drafts. The SG sends them back with notes on where your logic is wrong or where your cites were wrong, etc. This gets done many times for each case you may be involved with.

The only brief that the public gets to see is the final polished paper that is submitted to the Court.

Do you think any person should get to see and critic in open Congress, how you went from A to Z, along with all the comments your Boss made? Congress is now acting as your Law School Professor?

Keep in mind that as a Deputy SG, you are prosecuting cases. Not adjudicating them. How is this relevant to how you would adjudicate a given case? We can use all the same scenario for Roberts when he was a private defense attorney (attorney-client privilege be damned!).

How about when he was special council for Reagan or Bush? Why would how he instructed on the legality of a situation have any relevance on how he would adjudicate the same inference?

If you think about this, the only relevance any of these "memos" to the hearings are on how they can be used to embarrass or humiliate the man.

The man has not been a Judge long enough to establish much of anything, by way of his decisions... So go for the juggular and assassinate his character. That is the only purpose in wanting these papers.

Democrat or Republican, that is the only reason to have such access. Roberts will not "bork" himself (interesting etymology how this has become a derogatory verb...), so let's do it for him...
 
He looks good on the surface, but for some reason, I'm a bit suspicious... Maybe because Gonzalez came out in support of an AW ban.

There may be a "rat" in the woodpile...
 
Anybody else wondering if this young buck is just a sacraficial lamb? I don't know much about him, but he does seem rather young - could the White House be using him to to make some other candidate more paletable later.

Just a thought.
 
Charles Schumer doesn't like him so he can't be all bad. But I do wish we had a little more information on him. Rememeber David Souter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top