Don’t mistake Roberts’ writings for Roberts’ views

Because U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has only been on the federal appeals bench for two years, Democrats are making a fuss about needing to see everything he wrote as an attorney in the administrations of former presidents Bush and Reagan. But if they get their hands on these writings, which arguably are subject to attorney-client privilege anyway, they shouldn’t mistake them for Roberts’ personal views. They should be taken for the arguments of a hired gun on behalf of his client.
Posted by Rhonda Holman

5 Comments

  1. James
    Posted July 27, 2005 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    Well, What did you expect? Did ya’ really think “The Govenor” was gonna do anything? Did you really think, for a minute, that somehow “She” would say, “This has gone too far.”

    No! SHE weasled out. When the going gets tough, “The Govenor,” crawfished again.

  2. Hammer
    Posted July 27, 2005 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    James, what do you think the governor has to do with Roberts? You need to slow down on the drugz.

  3. Zoom
    Posted July 27, 2005 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    Oh, you know – Rosen, Roberts so easy to get confused when you are trying to keep all these “activist judges” straight.

  4. Antares
    Posted July 30, 2005 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Of course we shouldn’t judge Roberts on what he’s written. He’s a Republican.

    That means he gets to say anything or write anything or do anything he wants to and never get called to account for it.

    They’re the party of “personal responsibility,” don’t you know. The party that says if you are in need or sick or old, it’s you’re own responsibility.

    However if we invade a country that poses no threat to us and we lied about the threat . . . well, “freedom is on the march” or something.

  5. Antares
    Posted July 30, 2005 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    And speaking of the old Republican double standard, when Roberts (yes, this same guy) was working for KEN STARR (remember the man who brought Monica Lewinsky into your family room night after endless night), they DEMANDED that Clinton’s attorneys turn over their notes.

    Clinton invoked attorney-client priviledge, which Starr and Roberts argued AGAINST in court.

    “The court agreed with Starr that the attorney-client privilege did not shield the White House lawyers or their notes.

    “‘We decline to endorse the position of the White House where it is based on nothing more than political concerns,” the appeals court said.” (LA TIMES)

    But of course that’s when it was Republicans doing the Democrats dirty, that’s fine. Just don’t do to them what they do to us–that wouldn’t be fair . . .