W.House says won't hand over some Roberts papers

[paineinthearse]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3466 & http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050726/us_nm/bush_court_dc_7

With the Texas state flag in the background, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (R) walks a corridor with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) on Capitol Hill July 26, 2005. Roberts is meeting with key Senators during his confirmation campaign to affirm Republican Senate support and overcome Democrats' fears.
(:banghead: Who writes these captions???!!!).


July 26th, 2005 6:39 pm
W.House says won't hand over some Roberts papers

By Steve Holland / Reuters

WASHINGTON - The White House said on Tuesday it will refuse to hand over to the Senate some documents related to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' government legal work, a sign of a possible battle ahead with Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats, who have demanded access to relevant information as the confirmation process gets under way, expressed disappointment and said the documents being held back could hold information necessary to evaluate Roberts. "A blanket statement that entire groups of documents are off limits is both premature and ill advised," said a letter to Bush from eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration would make public 62,000-65,000 pages of documents concerning Roberts' work during the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan. But he said the Justice Department will withhold internal memos generated from 1989 to 1993, during Roberts' work as deputy solicitor general during the presidency of George Bush, father of the current president and a fellow Republican. Roberts wrote a legal brief during this period on the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing a woman's right to abortion, in which he said "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the White House had decided to hold back some documents and that Ed Gillespie, President Bush's point man on the nomination, informed him of it on Monday. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which will hold confirmation hearings, said he hoped the White House move was not intended to hinder the Senate's consideration of Roberts' nomination. "There will be additional documents we ask for," he said.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said in his 42 years on the Judiciary committee, "we have received many internal Justice Department documents as least at sensitive as these, even for confirmation proceedings that don't come close to the importance of a Supreme Court appointment." Specter said it was premature to talk about documents but noted, "I'd have to be an ostrich not to be concerned."

more.....

(Additional reporting by Tom Ferraro)

[JDPriestly]

1. It is important that Senators have access to all

of Roberts' papers. They need to know that he will not be implicated later in some scandal. They also need to know that there is nothing in his past that could be used against him to blackmail or embarrass him. By withholding documents, the White House casts doubt on Roberts' record, possibly on his integrity. The Senate cannot confirm someone to a lifelong Supreme Court appointment without full disclosure on the person's life. I think it is also improper that some of his financial information is being withheld. Again, his life has to be an open book. I realize that is a difficult burden, but it is the price we must demand before giving any individual the power of a Supreme Court justice. We need to be aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest or embarrassing information. There probably isn't anything there that would disqualify him, but it is necessary that it all be made public so that everyone knows there is nothing hidden. This is for his own good as well as that of the nation and the senators who will be voting on him.

[mbperrin]

2. No papers,

no Roberts. Simple enough.

ALL other SC candidates in living memory have done so. This is something NEW from the people who brought you the War in Iraq.

[seemslikeadream]

3. That would be Iran-Contra?

http://www.buzzflash.com.nyud.net:8090/contributors/05/07/images/pardons.jpg

Tuesday WH Briefing: John Roberts and Iran-Contra. Remember, BuzzFlash Has Alerted Our Readers First that the Iran Contra Pardons are the Model for the Potential TreasonGate Pardons that Will Keep Rove, et al, and Bush In Office and Out of Jail. Roberts Played a Role in the Iran Contra Pardons -- and the White House Won't Release the Paper Trail.

http://www.buzzflash.com /

Tuesday WH Briefing: John Roberts and Iran-Contra

By E&P Staff

Published: July 26, 2005 5:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Virtually giving up, at last, on getting Press Secretary Scott McClellan to comment on the Plame/CIA leak affair, reporters at today's White House briefing concentrated on another hot issue, the Democrats' attempt to get the White House to release more of a paper trail on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

The White House says it will hand over more than enough documents, while the Democrats want more.

One emerging hot button issue revolves around the holding back of Roberts documents from his days in the Bush I administration as a deputy in the Solicitor General's office, on grounds of client-attorney privilege. Of particular interest here, for some Democrats, is what advice Roberts might have offered leading up to President George H.W. Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger and others in the Iran-Control scandal.

But some feel that that client-attorney privilege argument may not hold, legally, so the White House may also be prepared to deny documents on “national security” grounds. This prompted perhaps the most pointed question of today's briefing (from a “Dana,” presumably Dana Milbank of The Washington Post), who asked near the end of the session, “Do you consider Iran-Contra a national security issue?”

“I haven't even thought about that, Dana,” McClellan replied, “to tell you the truth.”

Here are excerpts from the official transcript related to the Roberts documents:

more
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000991994

July 22, 2005

THE question for Congress to ask Judge John G. Roberts' during his confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice

Can loyalty to the President also be treason?

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by One Citizen

This is possibly THE question for Congress to ask Judge John G. Roberts' during his confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice. The balance of power between the three branches of our government here in the U.S. may be at dire risk due to a long-time loyalty between the nominee and the President. The answer to this question may stop the nomination process in its tracks if the answer reveals that loyalty between friends trumps his loyalty to do justice.

Let's imagine for a moment that a member of the Bush Administration was pardoned by the president after being indicted for say, leaking a CIA undercover agent's name to the public. And let us also say for the purposes of this question that the Executive Clemency order was issued after the indictment was proffered but before the case was prosecuted. The very timing of this pardon would virtually steal the golden fleece of justice from American citizens before our Justice system could work its magic.

So then let's further imagine that the federal prosecutor had no choice but to challenge the legality of the executive branch's pre-empting the full and fair prosecution of the law.

Now, finally, here's the question to be posed to Judge Roberts...- "If the President issued this imaginary pardon BEFORE the conviction, and the resolution of this imaginary case came all the way down through the system to end up on your docket, how would you, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, likely rule?

"Bearing in mind, of course, that the subject being prosecuted might well be innocent. Or guilty. We'd never know for sure unless you issued a verdict against the President, finding it to be an abuse of power. Now for the purpose of this question, let's say that the pardoned subject was very close to the President himself, having been a member of his immediate Cabinet ever since the beginning of the first term in office. And because of his position, likely knew and could provide testimony against the very person who had actually cooked up this foul conspiracy and set it in motion in the first place.

more
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/07/con05249.html

[paineinthearse]

4. That * has pardon power is

the ultimate slap in the face of the American people.