Robert George has an interesting post up on two potential problem areas for Judge Roberts.
Reader Interactions
19Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
Peak wingnut was a lie.
Prediction: the GOP will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.
Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.
Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.
Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.
“woke” is the new caravan.
We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.
When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.
You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.
A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.
I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.
Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.
Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.
A consequence of cucumbers
Spilling the end game before they can coat it in frankl luntz-approved dogwhistles.
You can’t love your country only when you win.
When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.
Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.
Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.
So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.
Good lord, these people are nuts.
This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.
Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.
If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.
ppGaz
I will play “Criswell Predicts”:
Tempest, teapot.
p.lukasiak
oooh…
I gotta admit that I’m salivating at the prospect that Bush nominated someone who wanted to give tax exempt status to a racist college…..
Geek, Esq.
Ouch.
Jeff Maier
I could see Schumer going after this but Schumer doesn’t make a block. Rremember the blockade against Bolton was holding up of documents that Biden had specifically requested; however, Biden couldn’t have pulled off the non-filibuster, that was Reid.
I suspect an easy confirmation with 80-85 votes for Roberts. Reid voting for along with most of the Gang of 14 and the more centrist-leaning prospective 2008 candidates, etc.
Geek, Esq.
Guess who’s the first Dem to pontificate on the records?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush_70;_ylt=AvQLeFPY8C0Rh2_2QBhIMcsb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw–
Sojourner
I hope he lives up to his billing as a super smart, thoughtful, reasonably unpolitical judge. It’s too early to say for sure if he is but I remain hopeful.
KC
I’m writing a thesis on governors records policies in California, have had to do a lot of research at the Reagan Library, have learned a lot about the Presidential Records Act (PRA) in the process, and think this issue is bigger than Roberts. The PRA calls for the release of inter-office correspondence records, etc., after a maximum of twelve years time (national security records were made exempt from this provision, of course). The twelve years was allotted to presidents by Congress so they could assess and decide whether to assert privilege claims over certain records. It was also included in the Act to address by statute an aspect of the Court’s ruling in Nixon v Administrator that said executive privilege over deliberative communications faded over time. The point was, however, to ensure that documents created by people working on the public’s tab would eventually be open to the public after 12 years.
In 2001, a new executive order promulgated by the Bush administration essentially nullified the 12 year provision of the PRA. The order asserted that people from the former administration and people in the current administration had to agree to the release of records before they could be made public. The order created a legal limbo if one of the parties never answered a request to view records, or denied it, the records are closed (of course, the FOIA and the PRA both were written so that the government deferred to openness wherein specific statutory exemptions to disclosure were not made). The administration said the order was to better “manage” presidential records; a lot of historians and researchers disagreed. (Just an anecdote, I discussed the issue with one of the Reagan Library archivists. They said the order made their jobs tougher because they had to deal with a lot of pissed off people.) Public citizen sued on behalf of a group of historians, researchers, etc. but the suit was tossed because the judge found it was too early to assess the damage to public disclosure caused by the order.
The administration could bring its executive order back into play and cause a ruckus. Given the law, Democrats probably have a legitimate claim concerning the records; groups might sue because they now have a demonstrative example of how the new order is being used to evade disclosure. Also, don’t forget, a bipartisan group in the house sponsored a bill to nullify the executive order (my former Congressman, Republican Doug Ose, was the author). My point, if the administration is not careful, this issue could blow up in its face.
Richard Bottoms
Another one of those issues that draw at ‘what’s the big deal’ from white folks, but is very important to blacks.
Bush never should have gone to Bob Jones University, but he needed the southern racialist (yes I spelled it correctly) vote. These are the same people the McCain whispering campaign was aimed at.
If Roberts helped in any way to draft an opinion favorable to this racist (yes a different spelling for a reason. racist and racialist are not the same) university then I would expect the Democrats on the comittee to carve out his liver and feed it to him.
Metophorically speaking of course.
ppGaz
Criswell speaks:
It may be an issue that Repubs don’t want aired, but it won’t affect the Roberts confirmation much, unless “there is something we don’t know.” The eternal caveat.
Roberts was a young lawyer who worked on something a long time ago? It sounds like a “so what?” Lawyers do what their clients need them to do. They shouldn’t be blamed for the foolishness of their clients.
Richard Bottoms
Yes, Roberts will be asked about his views on interracial dating and the southern racialists on whose behalf he worked.
It’s just one of those things that piss blacks off about the Republican party.
Actually I am waiting to see who will be the first panderer of the 2008 election to show up at Bob Jones U. and what excuse _he’ll_ make later.
Bernard Yomtov
Lawyers do what their clients need them to do. They shouldn’t be blamed for the foolishness of their clients.
Yes they should, in the case of lawyers who get involved in politics and choose to represent certain groups or Administrations. One of the law professors John quotes in a related post is exactly right about this.
Roberts wasn’t conscripted to work for Reagan.
Mike
“oooh…
I gotta admit that I’m salivating at the prospect that Bush nominated someone who wanted to give tax exempt status to a racist college…..”
Get over it. Byrd’s already given the guy a pass and it appears Durbin has as well.
You guy’s are pretty much done.
Kennedy and a few others will continue to say stupid things (of course), but in the end this guy will get in.
Al Maviva
In keeping with my new paranoid lefty comment theme:
“Sure, he looks like a nice and all. But he has a picture of himself in his office, where he looks 200 years old, and he is growing horns, it appears.
I also have it from his Korean launderer that he owns an *awful* lot of white sheets, and he gets extra starch – so you could almost form the sheets into a pointy white hat if you wanted to.
That, and his wife has terrible intestinal gas problems. And she kicks their terrier, Mr. Snuffles. And their 4 year-old son is gay. I read it on Kos.”
Kimmitt
I love your linked poster’s implication that liberals don’t really care about the foulness which is Bob Jones University but only use it as a rhetorical punching bag.
Here’s a quick hint: Universities with same-race dating policies are terrifying and enraging to liberals. The fact that conservatives pander to them is not seen as an opportunity to bash conservatives but as a horrifying example of the mainstream nature of racism in modern conservatism. We’re pissed for real, not for pretend.
Richard Bottoms
What Kimmitt said.
Sojourner
The Bush supporters have given up their ethics and values to unthinkingly follow this administration, no matter the crap this crew does. They just assume the lefties have done the same.
The lefties have not. We do care about morality. We do care about torture. We do care about a national security based on lies. We do care about outing CIA operatives. As ppGaz says, the means do not justify the ends.
Mike
“Sojourner Says:
The Bush supporters have given up their ethics and values to unthinkingly follow this administration, no matter the crap this crew does. They just assume the lefties have done the same.
The lefties have not. We do care about morality. We do care about torture. We do care about a national security based on lies. We do care about outing CIA operatives. As ppGaz says, the means do not justify the ends.”
The implication to this little diatribe being that liberals are on the side of Angels (assuming of course any libs actually BELIEVE in Angels) and that Rethuglicans are evil. Yeah…that means alot coming from a Lib. I know I’m convinced, thanks for clearing everything up.
Mike
“We’re pissed for real, not for pretend.”
And some of us really don’t care that you get pissed about well…anything.
That’s not for pretend.
That’s for real.
Sojourner
We’re certainly closer to the founding fathers than those who support a war based on lies and the outing of CIA operatives.
I don’t expect to convince you nor do I care whether I do or not. It’s just kind of fun to poke the righteous right who don’t understand just how much they’ve sold their soul for the Bush crowd.