WASHINGTON, July 25 - The Bush administration plans to release documents from Judge John G. Roberts's tenure in the White House counsel's office in the mid-1980's and his earlier job working for the attorney general, but will not make public papers covering the four years he spent as principal deputy solicitor general starting in 1989, two senior administration officials said Monday.
The decision fulfilled a request for disclosure of the documents made on Monday by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which will hold the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts, President Bush's choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said the senator's spokesman, Bill Reynolds.
But it falls short of the disclosure sought by Democrats, who have been demanding access to files from the nominee's work in the solicitor general's office at the Justice Department from 1989 to 1993, under the first President George Bush. Democrats say those files could shed light on the nominee's thinking about issues that could come before the court, and are especially important because Judge Roberts has not produced much of a paper trail when it comes to issues like abortion. Mr. Specter did not seek access to the papers from Judge Roberts's work as deputy solicitor general, Mr. Reynolds said.
The administration officials said the White House would work with the National Archives and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to expedite processing of roughly 50,000 pages of documents from 1982 to 1986, when Judge Roberts was an assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. About 4,000 pages of documents from that period have already been made public, but those have not included papers pertaining to Judge Roberts's work on a broad array of topics including the Iran-contra scandal, school prayer and civil rights issues.
The officials said the administration had decided to waive any claim to attorney-client privilege from those documents because the papers are covered by the Presidential Records Act, the law that governs the disposition of presidential papers. The administration's position, one of the officials said, is that there is a "presumption of disclosure" when it comes to documents covered by the act. Under the law, the current White House has final say over what presidential documents are made public.
So the Bush Administration is going to throw a few scraps of documents, of their own choosing, to placate the Senate Democrats demands. The Times continues saying "White House had reviewed some of the papers from Judge Roberts's work in the counsel's office and saw nothing in them that could create problems for his confirmation."
And we are suppose to accept this? I'm sorry--I don't buy it. We have an administration that has lied to the American people in arguing its invasion of Iraq, an administration that refused to release the names of advisors to Vice President Cheney regarding his energy policy, lied about the torture abuse and prison scandals at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, and an administration that continues to lie about its involvement in the Valerie Plamegate scandal. And now, we are suppose to accept the White House argument that they will select the documents for Senate Democrats to review for John Roberts Supreme Court nomination? It is ironic the documents that have been withheld by the White House include topics such as Iran-Contra, school prayer, and civil rights. These are issues that will certainly come up to the Supreme Court, and the Democrats have a right to scrutinize them to determine Roberts views and his thinking. In the Times article:
But the officials said the administration felt it would be wrong to release the papers from Judge Roberts's work as the No. 2 person in the solicitor general's office under Kenneth W. Starr. Those papers, which are not covered by the Presidential Records Act, record "sensitive, deliberative, confidential" conversations among administration lawyers in developing legal cases for argument before the Supreme Court and therefore should not be released publicly, one of the officials said.
There should be no lawyer-client privileges regarding Roberts's work as solicitor general. Roberts was working for the federal government. He was working for the American taxpayer. He was working to develop arguments on the government's behalf for the Supreme Court. He was working for us--the taxpayers. And now that he has been selected to the Supreme Court, we should have every right to review what work he did in the solicitor general's office. The Times article continues saying:
On Sunday, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said lawyer-client privilege did not apply either to Judge Roberts's work at the Justice Department or to his work at the White House. Speaking on the ABC News program "This Week," Mr. Leahy said lawyers in the solicitor general's office "are not working for the president," but are "working for you and me, and all the American people."
I hope the Senate Democrats will not give in to this latest White House snowjob. They should press for the release of all these documents for review. John Roberts has almost no paper trail during his two-year stint on the federal bench--which is a major reason why President Bush chose him in the first place. But Roberts had worked extensively in the government. He was a public employee. His work in the government has produced a paper trail. The Senate Democrats should have the right to examine that paper trail and determine whether Roberts is the right man, with his thinking, temperament, and views, to sit on the nation's highest court for the next 30 years. If the Bush administration continues to refuse to release these documents, then the Democrats should threaten to filibuster.
No comments:
Post a Comment