WOW...more incredible openness from this group of crooks.....
RIGHT!....the more SECRET the BETTER....too bad they are in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and not the USSR
Officials Deny a Request for Roberts Documents
By Carl Hulse and Neil A. Lewis
The New York Times
Saturday 06 August 2005
Washington - The Bush administration on Friday formally rejected a Democratic request for documents from the years Judge John G. Roberts Jr. served as deputy solicitor general, setting up a potential confrontation over material Democrats say is essential to a thorough examination of Mr. Roberts's Supreme Court nomination.
In a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said it would withhold information sought by Democrats related to the legal advice Mr. Roberts gave under the first President Bush, as he helped develop the government's legal position on a variety of cases from 1989 to 1993.
"It is simply contrary to the public interest for these documents to be released," said the letter signed by Rebecca Seidel, a deputy assistant attorney general, on behalf of William E. Moschella, assistant attorney general for legislative affairs.
The Justice Department letter said that such material had been protected in the past under attorney-client privilege and that releasing it would set a dangerous precedent and inhibit the agency's lawyers from frank discussions of pending cases.
"The office simply could not function effectively if its lawyers were asked to provide full and candid advice in spite of the expectation that their work product would be fair game in any subsequent Senate confirmation process," the letter said.
The decision had been foreshadowed by the administration late last month, but Democrats immediately expressed strong disappointment.
"These records are important because they are a window on Judge Roberts's approach to the constitutional rights that are the birthright of every American - rights that touch all our lives in so many ways every day," Mr. Leahy said in a statement.
He and other Democrats said the stance was typical of an administration they criticize as failing to be open with Congress. Under Mr. Bush, the refusal of the White House to hand over documents requested by Senate Democrats has prompted the Democrats to block Senate approval of some nominees, including Miguel Estrada to a judgeship on a federal appeals court and John R. Bolton as United Nations ambassador.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said that he regarded the Justice Department letter as "the opening salvo" in negotiations over the documents and that its position was wrong because similar papers had been released in the past.
"The fact that the letter is from a third-level official in the Justice Department gives me some hope that the attorney general is reserving his options, as all attorneys general before him have done," he said.
Earlier Friday, Mr. Kennedy released a letter he had written to Judge Roberts, noting that his recent responses to a committee background questionnaire played down his work in the solicitor general's office while it was highlighted on a résumé that Mr. Roberts submitted in 1991, when he was first up for a federal judgeship.
Mr. Kennedy asked that Judge Roberts "submit as promptly as possible" a supplement to his earlier responses to the committee, by providing "a full description of your activities" as a deputy solicitor general.
In a separate letter to President Bush, Mr. Kennedy complained that the administration has apparently leaked other documents to the news media in an effort to influence the public portrayal of the nominee while failing to meet Democratic requests for the same information.
The complaint about selective disclosure was prompted by the White House's release to The Washington Post on Thursday of two memorandums written by Judge Roberts when he worked as an associate White House counsel under President Ronald Reagan. The release was a partial response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
In the first memorandum, written March 1, 1985, Mr. Roberts is asked by a White House official how to respond to a request for President Reagan's help on a bill in the Kentucky Legislature that would require each public school to display a plaque saying both "In God We Trust" and another slogan giving thanks to God for the liberties Kentuckians enjoy.
Mr. Roberts told the White House official that the person making the request should be told that the proposal raises "concerns" about the Constitution's prohibition against entangling the government with religion and that "the president should not gratuitously opine on the constitutionality of this specific question."
The second memorandum, written by Mr. Roberts on Feb. 10, 1986, is a proposed reply to Representative Roman Mazzoli, then a Kentucky Democrat. Mr. Mazzoli, a staunch opponent of abortion, asked about the president's views on pardons for people convicted of bombing abortion clinics. Mr. Roberts wrote that the White House should reply over the signature of a more senior lawyer that "the president has no intention of granting special treatment in the pardon process to those convicted of violence against abortion clinics."
Dana M. Perino, a White House spokeswoman, did not respond directly to Mr. Kennedy's complaint, but said: "Judge Roberts is someone confirmed to the US Court of Appeals without a single objection on the Senate floor in 2003. He is known by many members of the Senate, and they will make their decision about his nomination to the Supreme Court based on his record, experience, qualifications, and his judgment."
With a potential showdown looming over the documents, Democratic members of the committee sought to reassure their colleagues on Friday that their push for greater disclosure of information related to Judge Roberts's tenure as a deputy solicitor general was driven by a legitimate need for information rather than an effort to pick a political fight.
"The hearings before the Judiciary Committee will be the best opportunity for the Senate - and the American people - to learn about Judge Roberts," committee Democrats said in a letter sent to all senators. "It is too important a decision to rush through without careful consideration and the necessary information."
------- |
