WASHINGTON (July 25) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts declined Monday to say why he was listed in a leadership directory of the Federalist Society and the White House said he has no recollection of belonging to the conservative group.
The question of Roberts' membership in the society - an influential organization of conservative lawyers and judges formed in the early 1980s to combat what its members said was growing liberalism on the bench - emerged as a vexing issue at the start of another week of meetings for President Bush's nominee on Capitol Hill.
Although no Democrats have publicly threatened to filibuster his nomination, they have said they're concerned that not enough is known about Roberts' personal and legal views. Questions about where he stands on a range of issues, including abortion, likely will be front-line matters at his confirmation hearings later this summer.
The Washington Post reported Monday that it had obtained from a liberal group a 1997-98 Federalist Society leadership directory listing Roberts, then a partner in a private law firm, as being a steering committee member in the group's Washington chapter.
Roberts has acknowledged participating in Federal Society events and giving speeches for the organization.
But on Monday, presidential press secretary Scott McClellan said, "He doesn't recall ever paying dues or being a member."
Roberts doesn't recall being on the leadership directory for the Federalist Society? Even though the directory has his name in it? I'm sorry, but Roberts needs to explain himself on that issue, and if he doesn't, then the Democrats should filibuster him. But I'm more concerned about the White House refusal to release material when Roberts worked as solicitor general for the federal government. All of Roberts' notes, memos, and records should be released. Roberts was an employee of the federal government, and now as a Supreme Court nominee, Congress should have a right to review that material. The AOL news story says:
Some records already are available to the public at the presidential libraries of Ronald Reagan, in Simi Valley, Calif., and George H.W. Bush, in College Station, Texas. Others have yet to be cleared for security and personal privacy by archivists and, under law, by representatives of the former administrations and the current president.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to ask for such material for its hearings. But some Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have urged the White House to release "in their entirety" any documents written by Roberts.
Citing privacy and precedent, Fred D. Thompson, the former Tennessee senator guiding Roberts through the process on behalf of the White House, said Sunday the Bush administration does not intend to release everything. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared more open to considering such requests.
McClellan warned senators against even making such requests.
"We hope people wouldn't make such requests that they know are considered out of bounds and that can't be fulfilled because of those privacy issues," he said.
McClellan, Roberts was a public employee to the government. The public has the right to review his records when he worked as a public employee--there is no privacy issue here. The White House doesn't want those records released because of possible damaging material to be used against Roberts' confirmation. I'm sorry, McClellan--I don't buy it. I want to know both the good and the bad, before Congress places this guy on a bench, where he'll be judging decisions for the next 30 years. And if the Democrats do not recieve those records of Roberts' work as solicitor general, then they should also filibuster him.
No comments:
Post a Comment