Wow, Ted Kennedy

[dhussdawg]

I am not saying this to piss Dems off because most guys know this guy is crazy. Anyway, I saw footage the other day where he said Thurgood Marshall could abstain from giving his views before being on the SC if he wanted to. Now, the standard has changed obviously in Kennedy's mind because he is pissed that John Roberts want answer every question, and he wants every document associated with Robert's life. It is okay for him to want that, I dont care. If that is what needs to be done to see if he will represent this country well, then it is ok. Why the double-standard though? This guy flips and flops when things change form one party to the other. I am not saying this to pick on democrats, as to more question how a guy that is so blatantly biased is given such credibility by the party that is supposed to be accepting of different views.

[daybreaker2]

because there are people in both parties who are so stupid and blatantly biased towards their own party that they cant see their own hypocrisy. It's nothing new in politics.

[dhussdawg]

because there are people in both parties who are so stupid and blatantly biased towards their own party that they cant see their own hypocrisy. It's nothing new in politics.

Yeh, I know that. It is just that Teddy is always at the front acting like such a blowhard. I dont understand why this guy gets so much press. Is he well-respected within the party? I am asknig because I dont know.

[sik-m-boi]

Yeh, I know that. It is just that Teddy is always at the front acting like such a blowhard. I dont understand why this guy gets so much press. Is he well-respected within the party? I am asknig because I dont know.

he's a kennedy.

[daybreaker2]

Yeah. what I was gonna post exactly

[johnnylightnin]

What cracks me up is Shumer holding press conferences and stuff like anybody gives a crap. It's funny, he'll always be, "the other guy from NY, you know, not Hillary." What a schmuck!

[arkansasbob]

The Roberts Docu-Drama
The White House hurts its own executive privilege case.

Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:01 a.m.

The Senate response to the White House's unprecedented decision to release 75,000 pages of documents relating to John Roberts's tenure in the Reagan Administration gives new meaning to the adage that no good deed goes unpunished.



At about the time the first batch of documents was being delivered to Capitol Hill Tuesday afternoon, the eight Democrats on the Judiciary Committee sent a thank you letter to President Bush that began with the words, "We are disappointed," and went on to label as "ill-advised" the Administration's decision not to release Judge Robert's papers from his years as Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush.

Just to be helpful, they also attached a list of 35 subject areas in which they are interested--including "Abortion" and "Death Squads Investigation." Ted Kennedy issued a separate statement demanding the release of the Solicitor General papers and asserting: "There is no privilege, there is no rule, and there is no logic that would bar us from getting these documents."

The Senator from Massachusetts is wrong about privilege, but he has a point about White House logic. By authorizing the release of documents from Judge Roberts's work in the Reagan Justice Department and White House Counsel's office, the Bush Administration had made it that much harder to refuse Democratic demands for his later work product from the Solicitor General's office. More important, it makes it harder for the White House to defend the vital constitutional principle of executive privilege.





This is not some fine legal matter. It is essential for the workings of government that decision-makers hear the candid views of the people who work for them. That won't happen if they believe Dick Durbin might one day be reading from their memos on the Senate floor. Or, as Clinton White House Counsel Jack Quinn put it the other day, if the public has unfettered access to the advice that Presidents get, "Presidents won't get very good advice."



In 2002, when Democrats demanded the documents that appeals-court nominee Miguel Estrada had worked on when he was in the Office of the Solicitor General, every living former SG signed a letter of protest. "Our decisionmaking process required the unbridled, open exchange of ideas--an exchange that simply cannot take place if attorneys have reason to fear that their private recommendations are not private at all, but vulnerable to public disclosure," they wrote. The seven signers served Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton.

In releasing the papers from Judge Roberts's days on the Attorney General's staff (1981-82) and in the White House Counsel's office (1982-86), the White House acted unilaterally, without waiting for a formal request from the Senate Judiciary Committee. We can understand making public the earlier documents, which had been cleared for release by the Clinton Administration in 1998. But the decision to release the White House documents is harder to justify.

A President needs confidential advice from his White House lawyers as much as he needs it from his Justice Department. Advice from lawyers working in both offices is part of the deliberative process and is covered both by attorney-client privilege and the broader doctrine of executive privilege. When President Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer for the High Court, Republicans didn't demand documents relating to his work in the Attorney General's office or for the Watergate prosecution. The Roberts precedent sets a new standard, making it harder for Presidents to say no to document demands on future nominees.





The Reagan White House released some documents during Chief Justice William Rehnquist's confirmation in 1986 relating to his previous work at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. That was in response to a narrow request for information and related primarily to questions involving appropriate conduct of office; the documents were not sought for the purpose of determining judicial philosophy and went only to the Judiciary Committee (though were later leaked to the press). Similarly, in the case of former Solicitor General Robert Bork, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, some documents pertaining to questions involving appropriate conduct of office were released to Judiciary.

As for the 75,000 pages, Senate staffers and reporters are dissecting them, looking for material to use at the coming confirmation hearings. Writings on civil rights and school prayer are already being mentioned as possible "trouble" areas, and they will certainly be taken out of their historical context. No thanks to the White House document dump, Judge Roberts's confirmation may now be harder than it should have been.

[johnnylightnin]

Would you rather him be a "do-nothinger" like Vitter?

Are you insane? I'll not conceed that Vitter is a "do-nothinger", especially since he's only been in office for a short time. However, for the sake of argument, let's say he is? That question would be the same as saying, would you rather Edwin Edwards be a do-nothinger like Mike Foster...YES! Nothing is always better than harm. You really are daft.

[markay714]

Are you insane?

Sure he is. My index of suspicion is still awfully high that this guy is Dawgfood and you know the answer to your question if THAT is true!

[arkansasbob]

Sure he is. My index of suspicion is still awfully high that this guy is Dawgfood and you know the answer to your question if THAT is true!

good point. i don't think i have seen any dawgfood posts since sam "iam" showed up.

[sik-m-boi]

Would you rather him be a "do-nothinger" like Vitter?

kennedy doesn't really do anything except complain about bush and the war and give terrorists sound-bytes for their propaganda. so, yeah, i would rather him be like vitter.

[dhussdawg]

kennedy doesn't really do anything except complain about bush and the war and give terrorists sound-bytes for their propaganda. so, yeah, i would rather him be like vitter.

Exactly, that is like asking would I rather sit here on my butt and do nothing or shoot myself in the foot. That is all Teddy is good for, giving himself and his party a bad name.

[sik-m-boi]

...That is all Teddy is good for, giving himself and his party a bad name.

...and his state...and his country...and americans in general...

[dhussdawg]

...and his state...and his country...and americans in general...

So, in other words, dawgfood or Iamsadawg, yes we would rather Kennedy shut up and do nothing rather than make an ass out of the whole country.

[sik-m-boi]

So, in other words, dawgfood or Iamsadawg, yes we would rather Kennedy shut up and do nothing rather than make an ass out of the whole country.

right