Democrats Incensed over White House Plan to Withhold Some Roberts Papers

The White House has said it will not release some of the papers Judge John Roberts, nominee to the Supreme Court, wrote when the judge was a member of earlier administrations. The Democrats are up in arms over this. They believe that they should get their hands on all the information available to make an informed decision. The White House, which relies on faith rather than facts, is prepared to fight this tooth and nail. Some helpful advice to Democrats – vote “no” unless the papers come to the Senate.

For almost five years now, the Democratic Party has been a party of collaboration and not opposition. Indeed, a case can easily be made that the Democrats have not opposed the Republican agenda since at least 1988, and even 1976. Mr. Clinton’s New Democrats are Rockefeller Republicans in the wrong party. And nowhere does this show more than in the current unpleasantness over judicial appointments.

The president once said, “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier,” and the press laughed. One is not so sure that Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove chuckled as well. Information, documents and evidence all get in the way of their ideologically driven initiatives. Invade Iraq and pick the excuse: weapons of mass destruction, freedom for Iraqis and/or fighting terrorism abroad so Americans don’t have to fight it at home (and it’s only July, further excuses may be coming). Any evidence that Judge Roberts is a knuckle-dragging Christian Taliban (and there isn’t any uncovered as yet) would set off the filibuster, then the nuclear option on abolishing the filibuster.

The White House contends that Judge Roberts wrote things as deputy solicitor general that come under client-lawyer privilege. Fred Thompson, who will shepherd the nomination through the Senate, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” talk show, “There are lots of good reasons why [making them public] is a bad idea.” Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said possible revelation of what he wrote "does chill communications between line attorneys and their superiors within the Department of Justice." And these arguments are valid.

Meanwhile on ABC’s “This Week”, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, “"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." And Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) explained that it would be useful to have access to these papers because “there have been important questions raised about things that he said and things that he wrote when he was working for the government.” And these arguments are valid as well.

In the end, the White House doesn’t have to reveal anything. And the Democrats in the Senate can make up their minds to vote “yes” based on what does come out in the hearings and background researches. Or, they could develop some communal backbone and say, “We accept that these documents come under some sort of lawyer-client privilege, but the American people deserve to have a Supreme Court Justice confirmed with as much transparency as possible. Since this is not possible in Judge Roberts' case, we must reluctantly vote against him.” It’s called taking a principled stand.


© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home