Senate Dems not concerned about Privacy

[Gunslinger]

So as to make this look like a non troll I do have an opinion to add:

1.  Are these senate democrats really wanting to dig themselves deeper here
2.  Previous andministrations both repub and dem have recognized attorney-client privilege
3.  These guys are look more like complete obstructionists and less like law makers every single day.

Bush won’t release all Roberts documents
Administration says some material comes under attorney-client priviledge

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:36 p.m. ET July 24, 2005


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.”

Case-by-case basis
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said requests for documents would be considered on a case-by-case basis from the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider the nomination.

“There is often an accommodation that is reached with respect to requests for information, and I suspect that’s going to happen in this case,” Gonzales said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The committee has yet to make a request. But some Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have urged the White House to release such documents “in their entirety.”

Roberts worked in the Reagan White House counsel’s office from 1982-1986. Roberts also was principal deputy solicitor general in the administration of the first President Bush.

“We hope we don’t get into a situation where documents are asked for that folks know will not be forthcoming and we get all hung up on that,” Thompson told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said other nominees, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, have provided material they wrote in confidence while working in the Justice Department.

“There’s so much precedence for that,” said Leahy, the senior Democrat on the committee.

“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,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”

Part of process?
The Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said documents could be an important part of the confirmation process when little is known about a nominee.

Roberts now is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Nominated by Bush on Jan. 7, 2003, Roberts was confirmed by the Senate for that court on May 8, 2003.

“When you look at John Roberts, who has risen to the highest levels in terms of the practice of law in private sector and public sector, I think there have been important questions raised about things that he said and things that he wrote when he was working for the government,” Durbin told NBC.

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

“If we’re going to set a precedent that those communications between someone who works for the president and the president of the United States are some day going to be made public, I think it could have a real chilling effect on the kind of candor in communications that people would have with the president,” McCain said on ABC.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8689573/
 

what a huge fishing expidition.

[Maverick]

It's just politics as usual They knew that some documents would be kept back since they were in the past. That's why kerry made such a big deal about asking for all of them. They did it just so they could give the impression that the administration is hiding something.

BTW wasn't kerry the cantidate that refused to hand over some of his documents before the last election?? I seem to recall some controversy about that.

[SOB]

Holy CRAP!  This is some serious news, we should light up the Bat signal and get to the bottom of this.  Thank god the Republicans are on our side!

[Nash]

I have no idea about this as I just got back from a week-long expedition deep into the land of ice bears and moose, but I'm curious about this:

"1. Are these senate democrats really wanting to dig themselves deeper here?"

Not sure what that means. What does that mean?

I'm not sure I'll be able to share your sense of outrage once I'm able to apply some semblence of context to it, but in the meantime, I'll be getting back up to speed on Treasongate. That's where all the cool people are hangin' out.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by SOB
Holy CRAP!  This is some serious news, we should light up the Bat signal and get to the bottom of this.  Thank god the Republicans are on our side!

[SOB]

Is that Bruce Wayne?!

[rpm]

On face value it looks to me like if he has nothing to hide then no reason not to ante up, but I'd have to see what the precident is. You have to factor in that he worked as a councilor for a past administration. If past candidates that worked in the White House have turned over all their memos, ect., then I'd have to say turn them over. If not, then no point in starting now.

Remember, this is a seat on the SCOTUS. Not just some district judgeship. I'd say the requirements are high and the interview stringent.

[SaburoS]

Gunny,
For all intents and purposes, these are job interviews. Since these politicians will be voting on approving the candidate, they'd want to know what he stands for on certain sensitive issues. This game's been played for a long time where the opposition usually looks with a fine tooth comb and a magnifying glass the background of the candidate. Litmus test if you will.
This is a Democrat AND Rebublican game, not an either or. Been that way for a long, long time and will continue to do so. I'd feel  more uncomfortable being part of a process where one being nominated for such an important post was not scrutinized by the opposition.

[JBA]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
what a huge fishing expidition.

This is FISHING.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050516.shtml

On May 5, the U.S. Judicial Conference in Washington received a request from a man named Mike Rice from Oakland, Calif., for the financial disclosure records of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones

In addition to Judge Jones, papers filed by Varoga-Rice asked for information from eight other appellate judges who are considered possible Supreme Court candidates. They include the veteran James Harvie Wilkinson, who has served on the 4th Circuit in Charlottesville, Va., for 21 years. Other veteran judges targeted by Varoga & Rice who were on the bench prior to this administration include Emilio Garza (5th Circuit) of San Antonio, J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit) of Alexandria, Va., and Samuel Alito (3rd Circuit) of Philadelphia.

The other four possible Supreme Court nominees whose records have been requested all reached the appellate bench by George W. Bush's selection: Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit) of Cincinnati; Michael McConnell (10th Circuit) of Salt Lake City; John Roberts (D.C.) of Washington and Diane Sykes (7th Circuit) of Chicago.

Varoga, a former communications director for Sen. Reid, was national field director for Gen. Wesley Clark's 2004 presidential campaign. While Rice bills himself as an "expert" on "state public-records laws," his special field has been negative research probing the background of political foes. Varoga & Rice promises "public records research" that "can help you win elections, contracts and lawsuits." But compiling financial profiles of judicial nominees plows new ground.

Rice is not just a nosy citizen. He and Craig Varoga, a former, aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, are partners in a California political consulting firm. Their May 5 petition requested financial information on 30 appellate judges in all but one of the country's judicial circuits, including nine widely mentioned Supreme Court possibilities. Varoga & Rice's client: NARAL Pro-Choice America.


 Rice described himself as a "public records researcher" on May 5 when he asked the Judicial Conference's Financial Disclosure Committee for the financial statements of 30 judges. Rice did not reveal he was acting as a paid agent of NARAL.

Nobody can recall any previous mass request for such disclosures by federal judges.