So back to the main point, why are communications between a government lawyer and his “client” (some particular government agency) privileged? Why is it a good idea to keep those communications secret? For exactly the reasons set forth by the former solicitors general in Gonzales’ letter to Daschle and Leahy – if those documents could be revealed to the public, a fully candid discussion of the facts and law would not take place. Everyone would couch their advice and statements based on the assumption that the lawyer will be a potential judge nominee someday and everything they say will be made public. Clients withhold bad facts. Lawyers withhold advice on all possible scenarios. Lawyers craft their advice not for the client, but for their own future public relations. This is bad, we have decided. The LA Times apparently does not care about these values.

I would imagine that would be his final answer — ie, the documents that are signed, but I would also imagine a lawyer would also have a “counselor” type role.

Also, some legal issues may not yet be resolved — the type a supreme court justice might see — and thus there really isn’t really an answer to the question of “what is the law on this question,” other than to come up with arguments. Its those arguments that are of interest.

Whereas the papers not filed might contain less of the client’s view and more of the lawyer’s view, and thus would be more indicative of the judicial philosophy of an otherwise not very known candidate.

I don’t understand. Wouldn’t the client (the White House) either (1) be asking “what is the law on this question,” or (2) be telling Roberts “here is what we want to do; craft the best argument you can for us to do it?”

I mean, if I go to an attorney to sue a publisher for breach of contract (I never have, but let’s say I did), would any draft of the complaint tell us what the lawyer thought about, say, copyright laws vs. access rights to a literary work?

I mean, I would sure hope my attorney would simply come up with the best case he could for my side of the complaint, rather than lecture me on what the proper balance should be in a free society. Wouldn’t that be true of the Deputy Solicitor General, too?

Dafydd

The idea is basically that the papers he filed represent the views of the client that the lawyer has chosen to represent. Whereas the papers not filed might contain less of the client’s view and more of the lawyer’s view, and thus would be more indicative of the judicial philosophy of an otherwise not very known candidate.

I just posted this question on Beldar, but maybe some of the lawyers here could help me out; I don’t really understand these things.

What conceivable interest could these privileged documents hold, even for Democrats in the Senate? Even if they could somehow get hold of them, what on earth do they expect to find there? Some staggering smoking gun that will allow them to defeat him?

Like what — do they think he’s going to write villainous asides in the margins about wanting to take the vote away from women and put Jews in concentration camps? Do they imagine he confessed to some crime in the notes he sent up the chain to his boss, Ken Starr?

Or do they think they’ll catch Ken Starr plotting to destroy Bill Clinton, should he ever become president, by tricking Janet Reno (should she ever become Attorney General) into appointing him independent counsel in the Whitewater case, should that ever become a scandal?

Am I missing something here? Aren’t the actual papers that were filed in the cases Roberts handled publicly available? Why can’t they get whatever information they need about his “thinking” from those?

I’m completely befuddled. What is the point? Even if they got them, what would they do with them?

Dafydd