NY Times "gets it" on Roberts nomination

[gratuitous]

Precisely what I've been saying the past few days about the Roberts nomination: The White House should release the documents of his full records to the Senate, so they can perform their constitutional obligation of advise and consent:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/opinion/07sun1.html?

Judge Roberts's Paper Trail

Published: August 7, 2005

A battle is brewing over whether the Bush administration is wrongly holding back information on Judge John Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee. The short answer is: yes.

Senators have broad power to review documents as part of their constitutional advice and consent role. This includes the memos at the heart of the current dispute, which Judge Roberts wrote as a high-ranking government lawyer.

* * *

The White House has not produced these memos, and appears to be prepared to claim they are protected by attorney-client privilege. But the privilege does not apply. Attorney-client privilege is not a right of the attorney, but rather of the client - in this case, the entire United States. The current White House has no right to assert a privilege on behalf of the whole country. Even if it did, the attorney-client privilege applies to courts, not to requests from Congress. After the nominations of William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, among others, Congress sought and received similar documents.

Other records, including ones from Judge Roberts's time as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, are being released too slowly. The administration is eager to have a quick vote on this nomination, but for that to happen, the Senate needs to be able to review these records very soon.

______________________________

The Times also correctly notes that what has been revealed about Roberts' record has been "inconsistent". I can't for the life of me figure out why they can't just say that the White House has been lying about Roberts, but I'll take what I can get.

This administration doesn't exactly have a sterling record on the "trust us" issue. It has lied, deceived, misled, falsified, covered up and told only half-truths over and over again, to the great detriment of our military, our Treasury and our national honor. It has gone to unprecedented lengths to win on issues it should have lost. The nomination of a Supreme Court Justice affects not just the current political season, but the legal life of the nation for a generation. If the White House can't see its way clear to providing the Senate with all the information it needs to perform its constitutional duties, the Senate should reject the Roberts nomination.

[Cha]

1. The white house(not so shiny white

after the chimp has soiled it for 5 years) has stonewalled since they rammed their way in there.

They do what they want and who's gonna stop them?

[Why Syzygy]

2. The White House lying

what a twist. Not. Throw the bums out. Impeachment now.

[gratuitous]

3. Genuine, accept-no-substitutes, one-to-a-customer

gratuitous self-serving bump.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

4. Total disregard for the law

is what characterizes this administration, unless they like the law.

They feel they are above it, need not obey, need not take advice from anyone or anything.