The Phony “Give Us the Documents” Strategy
An article in this morning’s L.A. Times hints at what Democrats’ strategy will be on Roberts. It’s the same phony strategy they used against Miguel Estrada, i.e., demand privileged government documents that no self-respecting Administration would ever give up:
Several Democrats complained that Roberts had served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for only two years, and therefore had a limited judicial record. As a result, they were considering requesting copies of material he wrote when he served as deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush.
“Given that his record of his own views is rather sparse … those kinds of documents should be available to us,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
Keep in mind that, when Democrats requested Miguel Estrada’s Solicitor General memoranda, it was a wholly unprecedented request, which had never been made of any of 67 nominees to the Circuit Courts of Appeals since 1977 who had worked at DoJ. That includes seven nominees who had worked in the Solicitor General’s office. Also, the request was opposed by all seven living former or current Solicitors General — including four Democrats — who stated that turning over such documents would seriously compromise the ability of people in the Justice Department to be frank and open in rendering advice in internal memoranda.
But why not do it? You can hardly blame Chuckie S. for trying it with Roberts. After all, the documents strategy worked with Estrada, and seems to have worked with John Bolton.
If it’s documents they want, then it’s documents they shall have. Call Dan Rather, he’s good at finding documents and he’s not busy these days.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 7/21/2005 @ 8:53 amIf one arm of the Legislative Branch (the Senate) is entitled to seize, publicize, and dissect the privileged, private legal analysis and advice shared by attorney John G. Roberts with his then-client, the Executive Branch, then I would very much like to hear Sen. Schumer’s explanation for why the Senate is not also entitled to seize, publicize, and dissect the privileged, private legal analysis and advice shared by Circuit Judge John G. Roberts with his fellow members of the Judicial Branch (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit).
Bench memos? Hand ’em over! Correspondence among judges regarding still-pending motions for rehearing en banc? Chuckie wants to know! Earlier drafts of opinions? Ya never know, there might have been an important footnote reference to Roe v. Wade deleted. And while we’re at it, let’s hand over those redacted pages about the grand jury proceedings on Judith Miller, huh?
For that matter, somewhere in the file cabinets of Hogan & Hartson there are surely attorney-client memos that were written by, or addressed to, or maybe just cc’d to, John G. Roberts, Esq. Out with them! What’s a little thing like a constitutional right to effective counsel, compared to NARAL’s need for more press release fodder? Doest thou not know that the First Amendment was enacted mostly to guarantee access to materials necessary to the effective drafting and delivery of talking points?
But the documents aren’t enough. We need to ensure that Judge Roberts is candid and fully forthcoming at his confirmation hearings. Toward that end, Sen. Durbin will be given two remote control devices — one of which adjusts the air conditioning vents of the Judiciary Committee’s hearing room, and the other of which controls the volume of the Christina Aguilera music programmed into the iPod earphone that Judge Roberts will be required to wear while answering Sen. Schumer’s questions. “Name three Supreme Court precedents you’d vote to overrule, or else it’s more Genie in a Bottle for you, Judge Roberts!”
The truth must out. The Senate Judiciary Committee must become the gulag for our times.
Beldar (a1e881) — 7/21/2005 @ 10:16 am