Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Releasing Documents

I don't know about y'all, but whenever folks are reluctant, dare I say recalcitrant, to release documents, I get suspicious. Regardless the rationale, the intent and action speaks volumes about the desire for the W, Rove and Co. to cover up what it can. And it appears there is a lot to sweap under the rug at the Whitehouse - perhaps there isn't a rug big enough.

What are they trying to hide this time around?
The White House said on Tuesday it will refuse to hand over to the Senate some documents related to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' legal work for the U.S. government in a sign of a possible partisan battle ahead with Senate Democrats.

Senate Democrats, who have demanded access to relevant information as the confirmation process gets under way in the U.S. Senate, reacted skeptically and demanded more documents.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration would make public between 62,000 and 65,000 pages of documents concerning Roberts' work during the Reagan administration.

But he said the Justice Department will withhold internal memos generated from 1989 to 1993, during Roberts' work as deputy solicitor general during the presidency of George Bush, father of the current president and a fellow Republican.

It was during this period that Roberts wrote a legal brief on the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized a woman's right to abortion. He said in the brief that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

4 comments:

Anonymous said...


The problem with lawyers

Who the editorial ''we'' is, is important. Lawyers work for their clients. They say what their clients want them to say or their clients soon find new lawyers. When your paycheck is on the line you might be disposed to say some ridiculous things that you wouldn't say absent that constraint. Clients don't ask lawyers what they think, they tell them what they think.

Nedhead said...

..and then the lawyers interpret (too often, twist) the law to agree with their clients thoughts....

Liberal Traitor said...

Isn't it funny that the same people who pushed for the erosion of our privacy rights by way of the Patriot Act used the old "if you've got nothing to hide, then you shouldn't mind people looking at your stuff" excuse, yet when we the people demand to take a closer look at them, they are less than forthcoming?

Anonymous said...


Roberts revealed

The New York Times, for starters.