http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050725/ap_on_...h/un_ambassador

 

Senate Dems have repeatedly said btw that they just want to see some relevant documents before being able to make a final decision on the nomination. The administration has repeatedly refused to make them available.

 

You might see the same battle over Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. The Bush White House has already basically said don't ask for documents because you won't get them.

I was buying the attorney/client privilege line about the unreleased Roberts docs during Reagan and Bush I. But it sounds like such a privelege (sp?) may not exist in this instance.

 

can anybody here give clarification on the matter?

I was buying the attorney/client privilege line about the unreleased Roberts docs during Reagan and Bush I.  But it sounds like such a privelege (sp?) may not exist in this instance.

 

can anybody here give clarification on the matter?

Ken Starr argued that even White House Counsels are not bound by Attorney-Client priveledge. The Solicitor General is basically an Appellate Attorney for the US of A, and is even farther from the President than the White House consels Ken Starr argued weren't bound by it.

 

Here's 1 blurb:

 

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who is the ranking minority member on the Judiciary Committee, said there was "no client, lawyer-client privilege" that Judge Roberts could assert about his work in the White House counsel's office in the Reagan administration or in the solicitor general's office of the first President Bush. "Those working in the solicitor general's office are not working for the president," Mr. Leahy told George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program "This Week." "They're working for you and me, and all the American people."

I was buying the attorney/client privilege line about the unreleased Roberts docs during Reagan and Bush I.  But it sounds like such a privelege (sp?) may not exist in this instance.

 

can anybody here give clarification on the matter?

 

The attorney/client privilege shouldn't exist in this case - especially if its not ongoing. The counsel represented the US Government, not the President. Therefore the US Government should be rightfully entitled to any and all communications pertaining to that case.

Then I guess it's going to be good old Executive Privilege that trumps everything.

 

As always, it's good to be the king.

I don't know if this is a sign that Roberts has something to hide or what...

 

But...

 

The White House will now withhold Roberts tax records. That's a break from tradition.

 

If this guy is a good guy - which he may very well be - why would you withhold documentation that every other nominee has provided?

Here's the link to the story.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2601879_pf.html

Think there's any chance his tax records show tax-deductable contributions to the Federalist Society that he has no memory of joining but apparently was on tthe steering committee for?

 

Or, maybe contributions to the pro-life group his wife is affiliated with? If that was the case but they filed jointly, then it could be explained away easily enough as her donation. If his filing is separate from hers, though, and still showed that kind of affiliation that he and the White House are trying to keep under wraps, then I can see the desire to not make the returns public.

Think there's any chance his tax records show tax-deductable contributions to the Federalist Society that he has no memory of joining but apparently was on tthe steering committee for?

 

Or, maybe contributions to the pro-life group his wife is affiliated with?  If that was the case but they filed jointly, then it could be explained away easily enough as her donation.  If his filing is separate from hers, though, and still showed that kind of affiliation that he and the White House are trying to keep under wraps, then I can see the desire to not make the returns public.

These are the kinds of reasons why I NEVER want to be a public official. And why some damn good others feel the same way.

These are the kinds of reasons why I NEVER want to be a public official.  And why some damn good others feel the same way.

Absolutely. Life under the microscope doesn't look very fun at all.

But necessary.

 

We are entrusting this person to a lifetime position of determining what is or isn't acceptable in our society of law.

 

It's not too much to ask that the Senate, who determines whether or not to confirm him, can get access to files from when he worked for the government. Or get to see his tax returns to ensure no conflicts of interest.

But necessary.

 

We are entrusting this person to a lifetime position of determining what is or isn't acceptable in our society of law.

 

It's not too much to ask that the Senate, who determines whether or not to confirm him, can get access to files from when he worked for the government. Or get to see his tax returns to ensure no conflicts of interest.

Who cares where this guys spends his money in his private life?

 

I HATE the concept of abortion. But, LEGALLY, if that is what is the rule according to constitutional tests, that is what the law should be. And if I rule form the bench in that manner (if I'm in his shoes), nothing else should matter.

Dude, its not where/if he spends his money for any specific cause. It's more along the lines of if he received any money from a special interest OR foundation while he was working for the government.

 

At least that's what I'm thinking.

I doubt it. I think they want to say he spent his money on all the anti Democrat issues and therefore has the wrong ideals to be a justice on the SCOTUS.

That's all speculation. The man has a distinguished record of decisions & his rated as one of the best by the ABA. What he or his wife choose to spend their money on should have no bearing on whether he is fit to serve on the bench.

 

As for the abortion issue itself the travesty is not RvW but rather DvB. In DvB the court introduced "mental health" as a legitimate reason for a woman to seek an abortion regardless of where she was in her pregnancy.

The term "health" was defined in such broad terms that realistically it was impossible for any state to pass a law to protect the life of the unborn child under any circumstance.

 

Doe vs. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179: the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

 

That decision gave rise to abortion on demand & opened the door to partial birth abortions. The courts have essentially defined that personhood begins when a mother desires for the child to live. The viability of the child outside of the mother is of no consequence. Not all legal scholars support that opinion. Many believe that modern medical science must weigh in on what constitutes personhood & therefore Congress has a right to pass a law restricting abortion based on that assessment.

I doubt it.  I think they want to say he spent his money on all the anti Democrat issues and therefore has the wrong ideals to be a justice on the SCOTUS.

 

It's also past precedent to do this. Withholding it raises more suspicions.