Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Document Appetite Never Satisfied

Who couldn't see this coming. Democrats requested documents on Robert's advice as counsel during previous administrations. Rather than saying no freaking way, those documents are privileged and work product, and protected from disclosure as they should be, the Bush administration handed over some documents. Naturally, they couldn't hand over everything, because some things were likely part of legal work that was administration sensitive and not proper for disclosure.

But just like the Democrats are doing with Bolton, they demand more, even when they shouldn't have received what they already got.
Democrats gave no ground Wednesday on their demands for more of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' legal documents, saying the limited release by the White House could delay a vote to put him on the bench.

Gave no ground? What did you expect? Honor and consistency? They are Democrats.
"The Senate will need the White House's full cooperation to expedite the scheduling," said Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who also said he would vote against Roberts if he found the nominee to have an "activist" agenda for the high court.

Talk about irony. Activists is what the Democrats want on the Court. How else could they achieve any of their legislative initiatives.
"Something has to give. If the nominee does not want to answer questions, then we need more documents," said Schumer, a member of the committee. "If there is a moratorium on documents, then we need the nominee to answer questions more forthrightly and we need more time to ask those questions."

Well, Chuck, since your primary objection is his religious belief, how about asking him some questions before you start complaining about his not answering questions.

But leave to Leahy to top off your drink. Noting that he doesn't want another of "those" conservative justices, Leahy said:
"They've knocked down all these, basically writing the law themselves," Leahy added. "I want to find out if he's going to be as active as this — as people like Justice (Antonin) Scalia and Justice (Clarence) Thomas, who have almost willy-nilly overruled things."

Leahy also said any Supreme Court nominee who doesn't agree that Roe v. Wade is established legal precedent would have difficulty getting confirmed.

Uh, yeah. Willy-nilly? Congress has limited powers, and Scalia and Thomas enforced those limits in non-commercial areas. Not activist, not making law. Then, the Court adds a new right and nit picks every regulation of it as though the Court were the super legislature. And that is the type of activism we expect, Leahy says. What an idiot.

If this doesn't get very ugly soon, it will be hillarious.


At 3:10 PM, Blogger tee bee said...

It's like that maddening kid on the playground who goes around interupting games and butting ahead of the other kids, taking the cookies out of other kids' lunchboxes. When confronted, he just parrots back what's being said.

"Stop pushing!" "Stop pushing!"
"Wait your turn!" "Wait your turn!"
"Don't take my cookies!" "Don't take my cookies!"

Somewhere between confusion, frustration and utter absurdity, the kid gets away with it. A lack of reason can be a mighty flexible cudgel.


Post a Comment

<< Home