Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WH Won't Release Roberts Documents  
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 932 times:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/...6/roberts.nomination.ap/index.html

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?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAAFLT1871 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2333 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 913 times:

I am sure Michael Moore will get those unreleased documents.


Where did everybody go?
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 911 times:

Roberts on the SCt. Bolton to be a recess appointment. Falcon's not having a good day

User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 891 times:

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.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
EVERYTHING about this guy, who could be on the USSC for 30 years

Quite possible for half a century.

 spin 


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 885 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


User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 885 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!
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 863 times:

From what I have seen - Roberts appears to be a good SC candidate - why not release all the info?

Even if there is no need to do it, keeping it secret makes it look like something fishy is going on, IMO. Also adds fuel to the far left's arguments, so why not take the wind out of their sails?

Unless of course there is something to hide, and if so - is it something they are hiding from the far left or from the far right? Hmmm.... I wonder.  Wink


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 860 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.  Yeah sure
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.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...le=/c/a/2005/07/26/MNGVNDTBJ91.DTL

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 845 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.


User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 823 times:

Isn't there some issue about protecting freedoms? Specifically attorney-client privilidge?

Even government officials have some rights.


If you forget how to spell and make your posts just slightly more inflamatory you could be Rsmith.


User currently offlineKyleLosAngeles From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 214 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 824 times:

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 9):
If you forget how to spell and make your posts just slightly more inflamatory you could be Rsmith.

Better check your own post for spelling.



Happy 2006
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 812 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.


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 796 times:

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 9):
Isn't there some issue about protecting freedoms? Specifically attorney-client privilidge?

Not in this example, there is no attorney-client privilege in this

Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 5):
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!

There is nothing to fight about because there is no history that has been shown besides he is totally anti-abortion, pro-religion, and just another conservative like Clarence Thomas


User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 787 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 7):



Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 9):
attorney-client privilidge

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.



 spin 


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6812 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 757 times:

Old Teddy "Sure, I can drive" Kennedy seems to have had a polar 180 flip-flop on this position since 1967 and the Thurgood Marshall hearings.

His own words contradict him. What a shock.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45497


User currently onlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5999 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 751 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.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Landscaper Won't Work For Gays, Starts Uproar posted Fri Nov 10 2006 21:48:11 by Falcon84
John Legend New Release Out Monday. posted Sat Oct 14 2006 23:16:24 by Cosec59
(10 Things) Your Congressman Won't Tell You posted Fri Oct 13 2006 09:53:51 by NWDC10
England Has Won The World Cup! posted Wed Oct 11 2006 22:17:57 by Speedbird747BA
MYT Engine - You Won't Believe This! posted Tue Oct 3 2006 23:49:46 by AirPacific747
Laura Bush Moved Out Of The WH In June? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 04:47:54 by RJpieces
Friday Night: A Night I Won't Forget posted Mon Sep 18 2006 16:30:34 by BCAInfoSys
Florida Senate GOP Primary: The Vote Count Woman Won posted Wed Sep 6 2006 06:42:06 by FlyingTexan
Ebay User With -1 Feedback Just Won My Auction... posted Sun Sep 3 2006 17:07:39 by Cadet57
Holy Jihad Brig. Demands Muslim Prisoner Release posted Wed Aug 23 2006 17:04:27 by RJpieces