Thursday, September 22, 2005

Democrats making a mistake with Roberts

Gotta agree with the Daily Kos on this one:

Leahy just allowed a bad precedent -- accepting a nominee after being denied the documentary evidence to make an informed decision. That the administration refused to release those documents means that there was something to hide. But it's a precedent that can potentially allow our own stealth candidates to slip through without a full vetting. The GOP won't have the White House forever.
As long as Roberts and the Bush Administraion won't be forthcoming, Roberts appointment should be prevented. If Democrats let him get by on this ground they have set a bad precedent, one that may be used against their objections to a nominee in the future.

4 comments:

william t nelson said...

they made a case that they can't release the documents. the argument is based upon protecting an atmosphere of legal counsel/white house confidentiality. the problem is that we can't know whether they are being honest about that. however you haven't really refuted that argument.

from the testimony, and I saw a lot of it, it's fairly clear that he's not a nutjob like some of the other members of the court, and I'd be satisfied enough to confirm him if I had to vote.

Chris said...

Leahy's posturing has given him a lot of leverage for the next nominiee...the one that really matters. Whoever it is, I don't expect him/her to get through.

william t nelson said...

I would be willing to take the opposite side of a bet on that w/ chris [that the next nominee will get through]

Elaine said...

See, Scalia and even Thomas didn't come off as "nutjob"s in confirmation hearings either, but I think many on the left would now agree that confirming them was a regrettable decision. It shouldn't take an uncloseted nut like Robert Bork to sink a confirmation. If he's the bar Democrats set to break out the filibuster, we're going to let a lot of right-wingers on that court because let's face it: few people are as nutty as RB.
the argument is based upon protecting an atmosphere of legal counsel/white house confidentiality.
Anyone should be automatically suspicious of this defense, IMO, especially about documents from years ago. Executive privilige, let's remember, was Nixon's favorite excuse. Anyway, Roberts was not the lawyer of a private person or entity: he was a lawyer for the White House, and thus, indirectly for the American people.

Finally, I think it's kind of naive to believe the White House's stated reason for blocking access to the Robers documents which include comments on presidential pardons, Iran-Contra, and the Equal Opportunity Commission, potentially juicy stuff.