Mr. Bush wants a fair hearing for Judge Roberts, that's not mud-slinging and has intergrity?
OK, Mr. President, put up or shut up. Release to the Judiciary Committee all information on this nominee-doesn't have to become public-just let those who need to know, know EVERYTHING about this guy, who could be on the USSC for 30 years.
Secrecy dies damn hard with this president, doesn't it?
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 933 times:
The privilege argument tossed around by the GOP is a bogus one.
These are public documents, that should be made available to any US citizen.
The GOP really has nothing to lose by providing them. This fellow looks like he'll be an easy confirmation. By hedging, however, they may be trying to make the Dems seem as obstructionists. This may backfire on them, as people will start to assume that there is something incriminating in those legal briefs
Cwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 933 times:
Bork-ing and its cousins alive and well...It's a good strategy: keep asking for documents, whether you need them or not (Schumer just today even admitted most of the 75,000+ pages already released may not be needed themselves...he just wants them 'in case'), until you run across something you KNOW they won't release, and then cry foul! They KNOW these documents will not be released because they are those that no administration would release.
The simple fact is, the armies of the left and the armies of the right were all set for battle over this, and this guy is tossed out there...NOTHING to fight about! The left wanted someone they could label a right wing extremist for their own political expediency...they wanted a fight. The far right...well...they just wanted a right wing extremist. Now, they need to scour reams of obscure documents to try to find something they can raise a stink about. This time, however, even Ole Uncle Tedward has told his left wing cronies not to count on a filibuster or any other attempt at blocking this nominee. I have not yet seen one Democrat raise any objections...other than Schumer and Leahy attempting to play the game they have played with every Bush nominee to every position, as outlined above...but, again, even they have raised no serious questions.
So far, integrity and no mud-slinging...which will reverse quickly the minute the likes of Schumer and Leahy start playing their games. If they have questions for the nominee, they will have to ask and, if appropriate (see Ginsburg and Breyer), he will answer them. Nobody has cited any reason why they would not be able to trust his answers. The bottome line is, they want to get him to commit on the abortion issue...basically prejudge a case before it even gets to the court, if ever.
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1373 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 908 times:
Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 3): This administration loves secrecy. The Bush Administration always has something to hide. A convenient trump is 9/11, yet another way for Bush & Cheney LLP to exploit that.
Mmm hmmm... Bush cover-up... and he even managed to trick all living Solicitors General, including both of Clinton's, into signing an open letter arguing against the release of these internal memos.
The New York Times, citing two unidentified senior administration officials, reported that the Bush administration plans to release documents from Roberts' tenure in the White House counsel's office in the mid-1980s and his earlier job working for the attorney general, but will not make public papers covering the four years he spent as principal deputy solicitor general starting in 1989.
Republicans are circulating a 2002 letter signed by seven former solicitors general of both parties and written by Seth Waxman, who held the office under President Bill Clinton, arguing that the release of internal deliberations about cases would threaten candor and confidentiality of the office, which acts as the legal advocate for the administration.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 893 times:
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 5): Bork-ing and its cousins alive and well...It's a good strategy: keep asking for documents,
Uh, you have it backwards. The White House said they simply won't surrender all the documents they have on him. Different story, Cwapilot. They're the one setting up the fight, as if they want it, almost.
Remember, I said when Bush first nominated him, that I don't see why he shouldn't be confirmed. But for a lifetime appointment, the Judiciary Committee should be given all documents on the guy, and then make the decison.
If Bush hides behind privelage of any kind, he looks like he's hiding something, and that will only hurt the nominee.
Quoting KC135R (Reply 6): From what I have seen - Roberts appears to be a good SC candidate - why not release all the info?
Exactly-I stress it does not need to get to the public, but those in Congress should have access to what this guy is about.
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 860 times:
Captoveur, when a guy is going to get a lifetime appointment, that's just a hogwash excuse, and you know it. The president wants this to be a fair process, but it can't be "fair", if, true to his m/o, Bush won't release all details, which he does on everything.
Again, it doesn't need to get to the public, but it should be something the Judiciary committe should see.
As for the fact that Bush as apparently nominated someone who is conservative, but more moderate than ideological, I can only guess he's waiting for Rhenquist to step down, before nominating a certifiable right-wing nutjob for that vacancy. He will, of that I have no doubt. He'll nominate someone so far to the right that the left will never agree to them.
I have respect for attorney-client privilege. I am not referring to documents while Roberts was Deputy Solicitor General/Office of the WH Counsel.
Of the documents released so far, very few are in Robert’s own words. Releasing information (which this administration doesn’t like to do) can hurry a nomination – OR – cause problems, which the WH definitely does not want.
Given that his records are sealed - and not likely to be released – makes me wonder even more what exactly they contain. Makes me wary to support him.
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6075 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 799 times:
Question: Can Roberts even be appointed, using the recess thingie? Someone referred to the bit in the US Constitution that gives the President permission to appoint someone during recess
Quoting US Constitution: Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
When did the vacancy occur?
Oh, and Slider, I wouldn't go down that path, since Laura Bush ain't such a good driver either.