Manipulating Disclosure Criteria
The New York Times this morning reports on the Bush Administration's decision to release some of the records from John Roberts past, but not all of them.
The Times article states: "The Bush administration plans to release documents from Judge John G. Roberts's tenure in the White House counsel's office in the mid-1980's and his earlier job working for the attorney general, but will not make public papers covering the four years he spent as principal deputy solicitor general starting in 1989." (Emphasis added).
The story goes on to explain that an unnamed Administration official said that the White House had reviewed some of the papers from Judge Roberts's work in the counsel's office and saw nothing in them that could create problems for his confirmation. (Emphasis added).
First, it is very disquieting that the Administration might have decided differently on the disclosure question if they had found something in there that could have created problems for his confirmation.
Also, that statement raises serious suspicions about the Administration's refusal to turn over documents from Judge Roberts' tenure in the Office of the Solicitor General. How are we to take their arguments about privacy seriously when we now know that they read the documents and assess their potential for creating problems for the confirmation?
Moreover, I don't understand how one can argue that the United States Senate shouldn't be able to see the work product of a lawyer working in the Solicitor General's Office in the first place.
From the Solicitor General's own web page: "The Solicitor General determines the cases in which Supreme Court review will be sought by the government and the positions the government will take before the Court." (Emphasis added).
The Senate -- it seems to me -- should be able to view the work of the Solicitor General's Office whenever it pleases. For all intents and purposes, the Senate is the Solicitor General's Office's client.
The Senate should especially get to see the work product of a former Solicitor General's Office lawyer who has been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, and who has an otherwise scant record of written work.
- Fired up Missourian's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
More Disclosure Shenanigans
Reuters is also reporting that the White House is preparing to bypass the Senate altogether and install John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador via the use of a recess appointment.
A recess appointment would enable Bolton to serve in the U.N. post until the Senate reconvenes in January 2007.
The link between these two stories is the Administration's continuing insistence to thumb its nose at the United States Senate. The Democratic leadership in the Senate has vowed to end the filibuster and permit the Senate to vote on Bolton as soon as the White House turns over a set of requested documents about Bolton's role in the State Department.
The Administration arrogantly and condescendingly continues to tell the Senate that it has all the information it needs.
A recess appointment here would be a double slap in the Senate's face: on the one hand, it would be bypassing the Senate while a high-profile nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States is pending. But it would also be an insulting reminder of the White House's ongoing and contemptuous pattern of dictating to the Senate what information it can and can't consider in exercising its constitutional responsibility to offer advice and consent on Presidential nominations.
An excellent point. Also troubling is...
...the continued use by the administration of "unnamed administration officials" and off-the-record briefings to disseminate what amount to partisan spin-points, and the tacit approval by the media of such tactics.
It's one thing for administration officials to give anonymous statements to the press when the statement is counter to the administration's position, as attribution of such a statement might subject the official to discipline or retribution. In such scenarios, the decision of the media to honor such requests for anonymity is rational. But in the present circumstance, use of unattributed statements by the Times reporter amounts to the provision of political cover to officials who are doing nothing more noble than flacking for their political patrons.
There is no conceivable reason for why the Times ought to allow officials to use their publication as an outlet for self-serving propaganda under cover of anonymity. Doing so allows the holders of power access to attempt to control what's reported by an "independent" media while doing nothing whatsoever to increase the accountability expected of the powerful. Suppose for a moment that, at some point, some of the documents from Roberts tenure in the Office of Solicitor General fall into the hands of the press, and among them are some which shed a compromising light on his past.
Who might the public hold responsible for making statements to the effect that the documents needn't be released because "nothing in them could create problems for his confirmation" if it became clear that the reverse was indeed the truth? There'd be no one to blame, and that is precisely why the White House makes prolific use of off-the-record briefings to influence the public's view. Of course, we should be able to expect better from our national "leaders", but by this point most of us harbor no such illusions. That's why we count on media watchdogs like the New York Times to regulate scurrilous use of unnamed sourcing, and why it's so disappointing when they fail to do so.
The United States is in a Propaganda Strait Jacket
I'm not surprised. This is standard repuglican operating procedure. The sad fact is, that for the last 10 years at the very least the GOP power elite has steadily sought to erode our Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.
But that's not enough for them! 90% of the media is now owned and operated conservatives and hence, they control what we read, hear and see on tv, the radio, newspapers and magazines every day. The internet seems to be the last vestige of open communication.
The horrifying truth of the matter is that the United States is now caught in the vise of a Propaganda Strait Jacket!
We don't have an open and truthful media anymore. The right wingers are taking control of the entire country, and it is steadily being used to serve only the right wing power elite! The rest of the citizen peons are at their mercy!
I understand if you travel to other countries, after a few days, you begin to be aware of a definite difference. They have much more free speech and power of the press than you and I can begin to imagine! Its all so very sad and tragic.
SoaperGirl