White House Won't Show All Roberts Papers

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration does not intend to release all memos and others documents written by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts during his tenure with two Republican administrations, a White House representative said Sunday.


Fred D. Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who is guiding Roberts through the nomination process on behalf of the White House, said material that would come under attorney-client privilege would be withheld.

He said previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have followed that principle.

A leading Senate Democrat disputed the assertion that privacy was at stake and called such a position a "red herring."

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050724/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_records

[FloridaPat]

1. Is the WH that big that it can hold all these papers * refuses to release?

[LaurenG]

18. That was my thought

I'm sure nearly all he's ruled on is public record. Right?

[me b zola]

55. They are not seeking his public records of court cases

rather, they are seeking memos that he wrote as SG that are now kept in the Reagan Library. These are important because these are not arguments that he made on behalf of a client, but rather they are his personal thoughts on any given subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1646876#top

There is another article that I forgot to bookmark that says that Kerry has requested all papers re: Roberts be handed over to the Senate.

[msongs]

2. bushco - most secretive presidency EVER and for good reason,

there is so much skulduggery to hide.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Solly Mack]

3. Of course not....he never does...good thing he believes in being

transparent...

ho hum

[deminks]

4. No documents, no Roberts!

I hope.

[Brundle_Fly]

27. we did it to bolton.

we'll do it again.

[CAcyclist]

50. We Need to Call Feinstein

Tell her to at least stand up with her party to demand all the papers.

That's a reasonable request. Let's hammer it.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

[wakeme2008]

5. Kerry called for all papers a couple days ago...

Makes you wonder what Kerry knows are in those papers.

[fooj]

21. Makes you wonder what Kerry knows. Period.

Peace.

[DanCa]

6. What this white house hidding something?

Nah not President Bush.

[IndianaGreen]

7. "attorney-client privilege"?

Not such animal since Ken Starr put an end to that claim!

Roberts was not Bush's personal attorney, so he cannot make such a claim of privilege.

This is PR bullshit to cover up something Roberts wrote that they don't want us to see.

[fob]

45. As Solicitor General Robert's was OUR (We the People) attorney

and as such I hereby waive my attorney-client privelege in regards to his entire work product.

[sweetheart]

46. Does there exist a list of all his litigations?

Surely we can figure where the attourney client priviledge is being
used to hide criminality based on the case.

[fob]

49. From what I've read *they* are claiming the ACP is between roberts

and reagan and or bushI. The problem is the Solicitor General represents US, NOT THE PRESIDENT, and so their attempt at claiming ACP is pure bullshit, no list necessary.

[goforit]

8. Yah.......but they will leak out all the Top Secret CIA Info.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. Well.... we'll just have to send in

the troops to get them....

[gizmo1979]

10. Why don't they ever do

anything above board?! Every single fricken time they have to hide something,just give everything up and let the chips fall where they may.This hiding crap is getting old,the American peopl deserve to know who the hell their next SCJ is going to be.

[leesa]

11. Same old. Same old. Well, the obvious conclusion then is that he has

something that needs to remain hidden.

[bunny planet]

12. Just wondering, isn't there some law that the executive branch is breaking

with all this secrecy and withholding of documents. They just seem to re-classify declassified documents as in Sibel Edmunds case or in the case of the papers of GHW Bush, (and of course leak the contents of top secret ones when they choose)and withhold papers needed to ascertain the appropriateness of a nominee (a la Bolton) whenever they feel like it. Didn't the founding fathers really stress the system of checks and balances in the Constitution. Isn't it illegal for them to wield so much unchecked power. I'm not being naive with this question, of course I know that they want to wield unchecked power, and that they've exercised it overwhelmingly since their first days in office, just wondering whether there isn't some law(s) that they've broken in doing so that can also be proscecuted.

[mrdmk]

48. How can you break a law when you make them up as you go along

:sarcasm:

[bearfan454]

13. Just like Bolton then - NO DOCUMENTS NO CONFIRMATION !

This fucking guy has already said Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned. He advised Jeb how to make sure Jr could win Fla even if the recount showed Gore won. He was instrumental in stopping the counting in Fla. This guy will fuck us for 30 years if confirmed. The gang of 14 better shut to fuck up is all I know.

[Toucano]

17. Exactly.

A mother scratching life-time appointment deserves ALL the facts and the highest scrutiny.

[shelley806]

24. This is THE issue: Bush vs. Gore, NOT Roe vs. Wade...

"He advised Jeb how to make sure Jr could win Fla even if the recount showed Gore won. He was instrumental in stopping the counting in Fla."

The decision by SCOTUS in the 2000 election is why B* is in office right now, and their ruling could be arguably unconstitutional...Roberts agreed with this decision.

Most of the country is opposed to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. The radical Repukes just try to make it a Democratic issue...it is NOT.

Bush vs Gore should be the litmus test...and Robert's involvement in it. I'm not knowledgeable about constitutional law, but wasn't SCOTUS' Bush vs. Gore decision a lose interpretation of the constitution? If so, why is it that B* says he's chosing someone who is a strict constitutionalist?

[Supersedeas]

34. Do not waive your oversight authority!!!!

[realms]

44. Beleve in your govement?

I've lost my faith with this administration. In other words "have you been drinking" no I haven't had a drop.

[0007]

14. 0h christ, here we go again. I think this is just a smoke screen

to take the attention away from roveie.

[necso]

15. Ah yes,

that "client" thing again.

Leahy: "It's a total red herring to say, 'Oh, we can't show this.' And of course there is no lawyer-client privilege. Those working in the solicitor general's office are not working for the president. They're working for you and me and all the American people,"...

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he thought some documents about work Roberts did in the solicitor generil's office probably could be turned over, but not material when he was one of the lawyers for the first President Bush."

I think that should be "all documents" ... and any material where he was not acting as counsel to the first bush. He was a staff counsel, I presume. Was his every moment spent defending his "client"? (I'd guess not.)

[TankLV]

41. But suppose that he WAS working for the criminal-in-chief.

They ruled against Clinton - there IS no "attorney client priveledge" between anyone who occupies the office of the president and an attorney. That's what they said then, and Clinton was forced to release all sorts of documents, etc.

Now that this criminal repuke is occupying that office, they don't expect us to allow them to follow that excuse, do they - and will the dems ALLOW this?

[still_one]

16. we should be able to find out where he stands on specific issues

without that

does he believe roe v wade is constitutional

does he believe in privacy rights

his thoughts on gitmo, the patriot act, etc

[mandomom]

19. Attorneys such as Roberts do not work for the president.

They work for us, the American people, and are charged with following the laws in the interest of our nation. There should be no attorney-client privilege between our government employee and our president. Bush would need his own private attorney for that privilege to hold. Executive privilege for national security resons is another thing.

[KansDem]

53. Isn't this why Bush "lawyered up" regarding the Plame outing?

If I recall correctly, Bush went to a private (non-government) lawyer for advice regarding the Plame investigation. The reason was because anything said to a government lawyer could be subpoenaed as public information. So that would mean if Roberts worked for the government, then anything he said/wrote could/should be made public, and that's why their statement of "attorney/client privilege" is horsesh*t(?)

Just thinking outloud... :think:

[baldguy]

20. If he was the best they could find, they would be proud of his record.

They'd want everyone to know everything about him.

Obviously, the White House is afraid of people finding out everything about him. What are they afraid of?

[pfitz59]

22. Roberts is another "bubble boy"......

Grew up isolated from society, surrounded by religious extremists (of the Catholic sort). His mentors were Ken Starr and William Rhenquist. Need I say more?

[fooj]

23. Eh Hem. Those ratbastards "Serve at the pleasure of the American People!"

I wish they'd get that straight.

Peace.

[Bluerthanblue]

30. "and it is in the 'interest of the Nations Safety" after

all-" if we 'the people' are being 'sold' the line that WE have to 'give up' some of our 'freedoms' then who the hell is Roberts, or Rove, or bush, or ANY 'administration' to claim to be 'above the law'-

Let's hold this 'responsibility' mouthing boy king, to his words-
Lets see that 'those accountable' be HELD accountable- all the way around-

If there is nothing to 'hide' then there is nothing to supress-

eh?

[fooj]

32. Yes. We must demand accountability!

Peace.

[Patty Diana]

25. Oh shit, here he goes again. He'd better not pull that National Security

crap again. NOT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not this time, buster. We have the right to see every bloody last word.

[pfitz59]

26. Roberts worked for Bush #1....

First thing Bush #2 did was seal all the records from Bush #1 (in violation of Federal Law)! The Duh-merican people will NEVER see all the documents from Bush #1, too many pols (on both sides) will go down! Undoubtedly Roberts had a finger in many of the nefarious deeds! (Legal cover!) Mr. Roberts is bad news all around!

[daleo]

28. Why are they hiding things?

The public has a right to know, regardless of what party they belong to.

[Bluerthanblue]

31. well, i wish i could quote Bill Clinton

here, and say "for the worst possible reason, because I could"-

But i believe they are hiding things because they would face far more than impeachment proceedings if the TRUTH came out-

and if bush's god exists- he's toast-

[Gormy Cuss]

29. This is so classic Bushco

Fred D. Thompson, the former Tennessee senator who is guiding Roberts through the nomination process on behalf of the White House,

That's Fred Dalton Thompson, who started his career as a lawyer during the Watergate hearings, and is most famous for playing a lawyer of TV (Law and Order.) Who wouldn't trust a Law and Order lawyer?

[Up2Late]

33. White House opposes release of Roberts memos (Reuters)

White House opposes release of Roberts memos

Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:24 PM ET

By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration does not want to release confidential memos that U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts wrote when he worked for two Republican presidents, a White House adviser said on Sunday. Former Sen. Fred Thompson, named by President Bush to steer Roberts' confirmation through the Senate, disputed calls by some Democrats to turn over all the documents from Roberts' tenure at the White House and Justice Department.

"The administration's been pretty consistent on that, in fact, I think very consistent, in that (confidential documents) will not be forthcoming," Thompson said during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Conversations he has with his priest, conversations he has with his doctor or his wife or his client are matters that are off limits, basically," said Thompson, a Republican who represented Tennessee in the Senate.

Democratic senators said they want to see all the documents in order to understand Roberts' views on issues such as abortion, workers' rights, women's rights, civil rights and the environment. "We need to know things about him that two years on the (federal appeals court) in the District of Columbia don't tell us, whether that's through documentation or his answers to questions," Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said on "Meet the Press."

Roberts argued before the Supreme Court as the principal deputy solicitor general during the presidency of Bush's father. He also worked in the Justice Department in 1981-1982 and in the White House counsel's office during Ronald Reagan's presidency. Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, disagreed with Thompson's stand that Roberts' documents are covered by attorney-client privilege and said many previous nominees had agreed to make the same type of documents public.

<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-07-24T182459Z_01_N24542680_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-COURT-ROBERTS-DC.XML>
(more and page 2 at link above)

[raccoon]

37. This administration is as secretive as the former USSR. nt

[arwalden]

35. Is This The NIXON Administration? Why So Paranoid? Why So Secretive?

What are they afraid of?

[Supersedeas]

36. Do average 'Mericans know a red herring? Senate Dems make it clear!!

[Supersedeas]

38. bet there is a large group of DINO's who hope the papers aren't released

[kaya33]

39. Other nominees released their "private " documents

To name just one- Rehnquist released documents that were supposedly sensitive at the time. Another BS excuse to hide info they do not want us to know about!We need to scrutinize these nominees! Roberts if elected will sit on this bench for at least 30 years...I am also worried about his wife.

[PatsFan2004]

40. If Hillary or Kerry ever wins the White House and

these memos between lawyers and the White House are revealed, no lawyers working for Hillary or Kerry will ever "speak" their mind or give proper advise to them concerning anything, knowing that their comments are now public fodder. This is why there are privacy issues with doctors and patients, lawyers and clients and so on.

It would be great to know what was in the mind of Roberts but I feel that lawyer client privilege is extremely important especially to our own "constitutional" right to privacy.

Every Democrat Solicitor attorney has sided with privacy on this issue. How could a Democrat Justice department argue before the Supreme Court if all of the "give and take" in the Justice Department was revealed. That might be like watching sausage being made from animal to finished product. ICK!

[TankLV]

42. Ahh - nice try - the Supremes have already ruled AGAINST tha very idea

during Clinton's term - remember? "WE" DO!

There is NO "attorney client" priveledge for the criminal currently occupying the office of the President - it was specifically stated so.

Now, you wouldn't be trying to send us another pack of lies, would you?!

[PatsFan2004]

43. I hear what you said but Dem Solicitors don't

want this relationship opened. If I were a lawyer with higher aspirations, I would feel constrained and unable to provide my best advice.

[TankLV]

54. Too late - any concerns were done away with that ruling.

President-attorney or anybody confidentiality is now non-existant.

The repuke supreme court so ruled as I already said.

[realFedUp]

47. secret papers have to do with Bob Jones U?

read that somewhere today...

[maddezmom]

here's a refererence to Bob Jones here:

In a December 1983 memo to deputy White House counsel Richard Hauser, Roberts offered quotations to answer questions about how to frame the issue of judicial restraint.

"(W)hile unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive or legislative branches of government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint," he wrote, quoting from a dissenting opinion by Justice Harlan Stone in a 1936 Supreme Court ruling.

As a sign of his view of how power should be wielded, Roberts offered examples of moderation in interpreting legal issues in the same 1983 memo.

"(In the) Bob Jones case: Even though (the Reagan administration) opposed on policy grounds granting tax exemptions to discriminatory schools," Roberts wrote, "we did not feel Congress had given the IRS the authority to withhold exemptions on that basis. We did not distort our reading of the legislation to fit our policy preferences."

That was a reference to the conservative Christian Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C.

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/politics/12202085.htm

[maddezmom]

51. here's a refererence to Bob Jones here:

In a December 1983 memo to deputy White House counsel Richard Hauser, Roberts offered quotations to answer questions about how to frame the issue of judicial restraint.

"(W)hile unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive or legislative branches of government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint," he wrote, quoting from a dissenting opinion by Justice Harlan Stone in a 1936 Supreme Court ruling.

As a sign of his view of how power should be wielded, Roberts offered examples of moderation in interpreting legal issues in the same 1983 memo.

"(In the) Bob Jones case: Even though (the Reagan administration) opposed on policy grounds granting tax exemptions to discriminatory schools," Roberts wrote, "we did not feel Congress had given the IRS the authority to withhold exemptions on that basis. We did not distort our reading of the legislation to fit our policy preferences."

That was a reference to the conservative Christian Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C.

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/politics/12202085.htm

[bluedog]

52. the newest headline"White House Warns Dems on Roberts Papers

WASHINGTON - The White House on Monday warned Democrats not to make extensive requests for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' legal writings in previous Republican administrations, saying many such documents are "out of bounds."

McClellan suggested that many — if not all — such documents would be withheld, saying that past administrations have also concluded they are shielded by attorney-client privilege and privacy.

"We hope people wouldn't make such requests that they know are considered out of bounds and that can't be fulfilled because of those privacy issues," he said.

more@
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050725/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush;_ylt=Als83PVcL5c2dwB1RtsXUXqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

[WhiteTara]

56. Sounds like the 2000 election notes must

be very damning.

[Rhiannon12866]

57. White House to Release Early Roberts Papers

By Peter Baker and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 26, 2005; Page A02

The White House will make public the bulk of documents related to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s service as a lawyer in Ronald Reagan's administration but will withhold papers generated during his time as deputy solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush to preserve privileged internal deliberations, officials said last night.

The policy was crafted in response to demands by Senate Democrats who want to look at files connected to Roberts's tenure in two Republican administrations for clues to his views as a potential justice. The White House said it settled on the policy in consultation with Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and that some documents would be available for review beginning today.

The agreement to release some Roberts documents came as the White House quietly presses Senate Republicans to start hearings on his nomination before Labor Day, in part to shorten the amount of time that liberals have to research and attack him, Republican sources said yesterday. Specter has said he wants to hold a week-long hearing just after Labor Day following the Senate's August recess. The negotiations on timing and other matters have lasted for days and may not be resolved until mid-week, Senate aides said.

The issue of how much of Roberts's record in government to release has emerged as a key point of contention between Republicans and Democrats since President Bush nominated him last week. Rather than launch a frontal attack on Roberts, Democrats have focused on pressuring the administration for documents, expecting to use any refusal against him as they have with other Bush nominees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501785.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

[wake.up.america]

58. They pick and chose what they want to release?

[Rhiannon12866]

60. Well, yeah! Of course!

How else will they prevent the opposition from coming up with ammunition to use against him? That's the MO of this administration: keep everything a secret and if something's leaked, deny, deny, deny...:grr:

[flordehinojos]

59. or after they have redacted whatever papers they don't want the public to

see.

[truthisfreedom]

61. daddy?

daddy?

is w trying to make amends?

[Syrinx]

62. that certainly seems odd!

I've got to chew it over. But it sure seems odd!

Hey sweet Rhiannon!

[Rhiannon12866]

64. This seems odd to me, as well. I admit to not really getting the point,

which is the main reason I posted this. This seems like a strange thing to attempt to keep secret, since it appears that the most damaging evidence is already out there, Roberts' opposition to choice, affirmative action, environmental concerns, so many issues that are near and dear to the Democrats. I'd think that they already had adequate ammunition, no matter how "affable" this guy is.:shrug:

This appears to be the defining paragraph:
But documents stemming from Roberts work as deputy to Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr during the first Bush presidency will remain secret except for any that were sent to the National Archives by the Clinton administration in 1998. Such internal memos are key to the solicitor general's deliberations over legal strategy, and releasing them would damage traditional privilege, officials said.

The name Kenneth Starr sends up a red flag, but how do old internal memos figure into this? And what the hell is "traditional privilege," anyway?! Sounds like faux bureaucracy to me. Are they afraid that they'd be setting a precedent that could give away their dirty little secrets in the future?!

And hello to you, my dear friend! I'm surprised to run into you at this hour, but then I'm the one who's not usually around now, LOL! How's it going, anyway?:hi:

[Rhiannon12866]

65. Here's today's NY Times article on the story. It explains slightly more...

Some Documents of Supreme Court Choice Will Be Released

WASHINGTON, July 25 - The Bush administration plans to release documents from Judge John G. Roberts's tenure in the White House counsel's office in the mid-1980's 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, two senior administration officials said Monday.

<snip>
But the officials said the administration felt it would be wrong to release the papers from Judge Roberts's work as the No. 2 person in the solicitor general's office under Kenneth W. Starr. Those papers, which are not covered by the Presidential Records Act, record "sensitive, deliberative, confidential" conversations among administration lawyers in developing legal cases for argument before the Supreme Court and therefore should not be released publicly, one of the officials said.
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/politicsspecial1/26confirm.html?th&emc=th

[IndianaGreen]

63. Is Bush claiming executive privilege as Nixon did?

The only way to get an e-mail to Evan Bayh's office is by filling out the form available on his website. The following is the text of the e-mail I sent to Bayh on the Roberts nomination to SCOTUS:

Please join Senator Kerry's request that the White House releases all memoranda and e-mails that Judge Roberts prepared while an employee of the United States government. This information is critical to ascertain Judge Robert's judicial temperament to sit on the highest court in the land.

The claim of attorney-client privilege made by Fred Thompson, John McCain, and others on documents written by Roberts while assistant Solicitor General is the most ridiculous claim ever made, particularly in view of how such claims were found by the courts to have no legal standing during the Whitewater investigation.

The question is what are they trying to hide? Judge Roberts's claim of amnesia regarding his membership in the rightwing Federalist Society should be a red flag that Roberts is being disingenuous at best.

Bayh's webpage for e-mails:

http://bayh.senate.gov/contact.html

Posted in Indiana forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=151x2870

[Demeter]

66. It's The Ken Starr Papers They Won't Release

What does THAT tell you?

[Rhiannon12866]

67. As I said: Red Flag!!!

:wow: