Wednesday, August 17, 2005


The WaPo's agenda-driven journalism: the miracle of the missing Roberts papers . And ethics.

From Smith and Becker in the WaPo: A file folder containing papers from Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s work on affirmative action more than 20 years ago disappeared from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library after its review by two lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department in July, according to officials at the library and the National Archives and Records Administration. This is a serious issue because it could, in theory, represent an impeachable offense. Deliberately suppressing papers requested by the Congress through deceit qualifies. If the White House refuses a congressional demand it can, of course, openly refuse. If members of Congress so decide, it goes to the courts and the issue is argued out. But mislaying papers on purpose damages the process of governance. Now, how do we know that the documents were returned? "[T]he attendant does not recall seeing the affirmative action file in question put back, [but] the marker was not in the box after the lawyers departed..." So, basically, the marker is missing, too, and so S&B tell us that proves that the file wasn't stolen. Put me down as skeptical. The real problem is that Roberts has a record of deficient ethics and so missing papers can only add to doubts this man is qualified to sit on the highest court. From Vanderhei" "Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was interviewing for a possible Supreme Court nomination with top Bush administration officials at the same time he was presiding over a terrorism case of significant importance to President Bush...The US code says only that judges should disqualify themselves from 'any proceeding in which . . . impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'" To blenderize a couple of sitcoms, "Sahprayz, sahprayz, sayprahz, Sergeant Schultz".
it is great how this is happening with republicans when clintons guys were shoving documents in there pants there wasnt shit they could do about it because they were good democrats but now it is republicans and republicans suck ass
Ah, if we could repair their grammar and their spelling, is there nothing we could not accomplish with their ignorance?

Brave litte anonymous, I assume you are talking about Sandy Berger. That's the only case involving anyone who had served in the Clinton Administration in which the right wing alleged (falsely, as usual) that someone shoved documents in his pants.

This happened after Clinton had left office. In order to impeach him, we would have had to amend the Constitution and re-elect him.

But in fact Berger was prosecuted.

So, if you are arguing that the law should be applied fairly and impartially, I'd agree. In this case, that might lead to impeachment.

Are you still sure you want to give up hypocrisy? It's worked well for Republicans for a very long time.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder