Roberts advised O'Connor to be discreet at hearing (Reuters)

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

By James Vicini 1 hour, 1 minute ago

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20050811/pl_nm/court_roberts_dc_20

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts advised Sandra Day O'Connor, the moderate conservative he seeks to replace, to avoid specific answers at her Senate confirmation hearings about legal issues expected to reach the court, according to newly released memos.

Those groups opposed to Roberts' nomination and even some Democrats say the tactic to not answer questions completely could be used by him to hide controversial views. The most recent nominees have pursued this approach to not indicate how they might vote in future court cases.

The memos from his days as a young Justice Department aide in 1981 were made available on Thursday by the National Archives and show the strategy Roberts himself is likely to use when he faces senators next month.

The 50-year-old conservative, now a U.S. appeals court judge, began his involvement with O'Connor's high court appointment on his first day on the job on Aug. 10, 1981, as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith.



"The largest U.S. industrial trade association endorsed John Roberts, President Bush's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, and said on Wednesday business should not sit on the sidelines and let social issues dominate the confirmation process. It was the first time the National Association of Manufacturers had endorsed a Supreme Court candidate. Roberts walks in for a meeting with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) (R) on Capitol Hill, August 9, 2005. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)"

[davidinalameda]

1. are partial truths any worse than lies

:shrug:

[shanti]

3. lies by omission

same thing, imo.

[Supersedeas]

2. avoid specific answers Ms. O'Connor--but of course I'll be forthcoming

during my own nomination. :sarcasm:

[Samurai_Writer]

4. Wait a minute...

He advised O'Connor at HER Senate Confirmation Hearing? Wasn't that like back in 1981? And this guy is 50 years old, right? So why was a 26 year old, barely out of law school, advising Sandra Day O'Connor?

[davidinalameda]

5. he was probably better at lying than she was

this man cannot be trusted

[fooj]

6. willing compliance.

peace.

[donheld]

7. The more i hear about this man the sleazier he appears to be!

He's not even close to acceptable in my humble opinion.