 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
!
Posted on 07/28/2005 7:08:57 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
In the eight days since President Bush nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court, senators have fought more over access to the conservative judge's legal writings than over the candidate himself.
Even though no Democrat has announced plans to oppose Roberts' confirmation, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats are digging in their heels on getting access to Roberts' paperwork from his time in the solicitor general's office. They say the Bush administration's withholding of those documents may cause a delay in getting Roberts confirmed to the seat being vacated by retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
Republicans, meanwhile, have spent their time praising the selection of Roberts and insisting that the demands for documents are misguided.
"They don't have anything on him now, but they're still digging and hoping," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, one of Roberts' most vocal boosters.
The White House says its Tuesday release of documents from Roberts' time in the Reagan administration should be sufficient for the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court begins its new term October 3.
But Judiciary Democrats say they need more than what the Bush administration has given them to judge Roberts properly.
"The Senate has a duty to the American people of today and tomorrow to get it right. I hope the White House will help and not hinder the Senate in getting it right," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat.
Republicans are pushing to start Roberts' confirmation hearings Aug. 29, interrupting the Senate's monthlong summer vacation, unless Democrats promise to allow a confirmation vote before the end of September.
"Absent that kind of commitment, it seems to me that duty will call on us to go ahead with August 29th," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Refusing to disclose all of Roberts' documents while pushing Democrats to agree to a confirmation vote before the end of September will cause problems, especially if the nominee plans not to answer all questions at the hearings, said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
"Something has to give," said Schumer, who is on the Judiciary Committee. "If the nominee does not want to answer questions, then we need more documents. If there is a moratorium on documents, then we need the nominee to answer questions more forthrightly and we need more time to ask those questions."
The White House is invoking attorney-client privilege in withholding legal writings by Roberts when he was principal deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush. The administration has released thousands of documents dating from Roberts' tenure as a special assistant in the Justice Department from 1981-82.
Other documents from that time could take several weeks to be released, giving senators little time to review them before confirmation hearings, said Leahy. "I trust they understand that would be the wrong way to proceed and risk adding more time to the process."
The White House said it has asked for Roberts' tax returns for the last three years, but Bush spokesman Scott McClellan declined to say whether the Senate will get that information.
"I think it's fair to ask for these papers," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., when asked if she wanted to see Roberts' writings and tax returns. "I think it's fair to be able to look at these papers."
But Democrats as well as Republicans have continued to give Roberts glowing reviews as he continued his tour of senators' offices. Schumer said Wednesday that Roberts assured him he would not act as an ideologue if he makes it to the Supreme Court.
"He told me flatly that he is not an ideologue and said that he shares my aversion to ideologues," Schumer said in a speech at the National Press Club.
One Democrat said he's now leaning toward voting for Roberts' confirmation. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was noncommittal when the White House announced the nomination, but on Tuesday he said, "I'm leaning his way."
"Based on everything I've seen, I see no reason to oppose him," Nelson said.
That was predictable. I think Dubya released some documents, knowing full-well that the Dems wouldn't be satisfied and would demand more. I'm thinking he's helping them to look like the partisan slugs they are.
Yes, of course, lets have everything Roberts ever wrote or had written about him, right down to his toddler love notes written in crayon to his mommy and daddy and his k-12 report cards.
Lets also investigate the lives of all his teachers from K through Law School as well as his camp counsellors, parrish priests, family doctors, every neighbor he ever had, car salesmen, real estate agents, clientele of restaurants he frequented, ticket agents at travel agencies ...
Before the investigation is over, Roberts will have died of old age and the rest of us will have died of boredom.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
!
Hey Schmuck, I think Dan Rather can hook you up.
Didn't Schmuck say he'd never approve a Catholic?
They'll let this simmer and the dims will bring out the big stuff in September.
If he doesn't answer the questions, then we need more documents, said Schumer. And if the question is stupid, do you say "this is a hypothetical (stupid) question" and there is no answer.
I hope so. Some thought Bush was "giving in" by releasing what he did, but so far Bush has been good at the political jujitsu, letting the Democrats go and make fools of themselves.
John Bolton spells his name with a J ..... same as the Klan ...... oops sorry that's someone else.
The Rat criminals got nothing and it shows.
A caller on the radio (Boortz or Rush) said Roberts should answer the abortion question, "I support every part of the Constution that was used to decide Roe v. Wade."
And people in hell want ice water too.. What else is new?
Now, I have to admit this logic is a bit specious. I should think that the Solicitor General, a public official, is America's lawyer, not the President's personal lawyer. As such I don't see where there's a attorney-client privilege.
Yep, we could just program this headline to repost every day at 9:00 a.m. until October or so.
The Dimwits are obviously laying the groundwork to delay the vote on Judge Roberts.
I don't know the Senate rules on this... can the Republicans force a vote, or do the Dims have to filibuster to keep a vote from happening?
Poor planning, IMHO.
The Dems can bark, but can they bite? The Pubs control the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committe. Can the Dems do anything, short of a filibuster, to compel more documents or delay the start of hearings? I'm convinced the dems will not force a showdown on the nuclear option with the Roberts nomination. Roberts is too popular and the Dems know they would crash and burn on that one.
What is wrong with those dumb Dems? Can't they see how bad they look to us taxpayers who pay their salaries? Will it ever be any different? Must we elect all Republicans?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.