A “Large Volume” of Roberts’s Files “Mislabeled”
A “Large Volume” of Roberts’s Files “Mislabeled”
First the National Archives “lost” John Roberts’s affirmative action file after it was reviewed by two administration lawyers. Now the National Archives says it “mislabeled” a bunch of other files related to Roberts. The AP reports:
The National Archives announced on Tuesday that the Top of Form Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., had discovered a “large volume” of unreviewed and unreleased Roberts documents that were filed under a code instead of under Roberts’ name. Additional employees from the Archives have been sent to the Reagan library to review the documents to determine what or how much can be released, officials said.
(For archivists, these guys sure have a hard time keeping track of papers.)
Someone needs to explain why these files were located now, less than a week before Roberts’s hearing begins.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that there might be something in those files someone doesn’t want us to see…
August 31st, 2005 at 11:04 amW, I think you are being parnoid. It’s possible to lose I file. I’ve done it a few times myself.
August 31st, 2005 at 11:11 amAll you need to know about Roberts is he believes the Supreme Court should be barred from ruling on the most important of cases.
August 31st, 2005 at 11:21 amHe’s an “anti-activist” activist. He’s anti-court. He desires to change the balance of power in our gov’t.
Another ’80s-era revelation:
August 31st, 2005 at 11:23 amhttp://hmpl.home.att.net/john_roberts_rocks.html
I don’t lose files, gregg. It is my job to not lose files.
August 31st, 2005 at 11:23 amI don’t lose files either. Like my mother always says about things that get lost, “they didn’t grow two legs and get up and walk away”.
August 31st, 2005 at 11:44 amWhy? Someone wants them out, that’s why. Forces of dark and light are at work.
August 31st, 2005 at 12:03 pmI suspect they were EDITED while they were “mislabeled”…
I still SAY IF CHIMPY LOVES SOMEONE, THERE’S A REASON.
If dumbya recommends someone, THAT IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED TO KNOW THEY AREN’T THE ONE FOR THE JOB.
i.e.: BOLTON
Dumbya acts like a spoiled little brat, tell him no and he will kick you, shout obscenities and run away.
So, how will he appoint this racist after we tell him no?
August 31st, 2005 at 12:14 pmBrian, I don’t think Roberts is “anti court” so much as he is anti “activist” court. He desires to return the balance of our gov’t to what it is supposed to be, i.e. the Legislature legislates — not the courts.
August 31st, 2005 at 12:29 pmKJ,
Bolton is a great choice. Remember, this position is supposed to represent U.S. interests to the U.N. — not represent U.N. interests to the U.S.
August 31st, 2005 at 12:31 pmRe #9
Back to the balance in place with…stuff like slavery and segregation? Don’t beat around the fact that Roberts’ documents make him seem more and more to be a racist.
August 31st, 2005 at 12:36 pmRe #10
Bolton is a great choice? Um, have you seen his recent work where he asked to reduce the UN reform document from 32 pages to 3, and to have a line by line review (we are the ones who wrote most of the thing…)? All Bolton wants to do is make the UN fall apart so conservatives can point and say how useless it is…
And honestly if you think that the UN can reform itself with a three page document, I want to invite you to a certain place called “reality.”
August 31st, 2005 at 12:39 pmTell me 3rdman, what are the three greatest accomplishments by the United Nations over the last 10 years?
August 31st, 2005 at 12:42 pmRed, how about an easier question (since I’ve never particularly liked the UN anyway, I just think its retarded to lie about Bolton’s purpose, which is to hurt the UN)…what are the three greatest accomplishments of the US in the last 10 years?
Huge deficits, creating terrorism, burdensome trade agreements with many poor countries that will forever stunt their growth, not improving the aids epidemic (woo condom shortages b/c of our “abstinence aid”), random wars based on lies, not stopping genocide in Sudan at all, etc.
We may not be worse than the UN, but for an organization that I’m guessing you think is useless, thats not saying a lot is it? Our country needs to base ourselves on higher standards and look to help the rest of the world, not look at other examples and say “well, we aren’t worse than them I guess..”
August 31st, 2005 at 12:52 pmAt least you don’t like the UN, that is at least a start. I think we need to start over and develop a United Nations with only democracies. Why include those nations with rogue dictators? Create an organization with a mission to spread democracy throughout the world. I know it may be tough, but it is possible.
August 31st, 2005 at 1:02 pmRed…I hope you aren’t forgetting that quite a few of the nations without democracies are because we helped put the dictators there in the first place. Why on earth would our government not want to have dictators in the UN that happen to be our friends? (And lest you forget examples of dictators we have put in place, I can point you to Saddam, as well as quite a bit of Latin America.)
August 31st, 2005 at 1:10 pmOh, and many of the people putting these dictators into power were conservative presidents, like Ronald Reagan. Don’t be fooled by this crap about spreading democracy, its a sham, this administration doesn’t care whether a government is a democracy as long as it does what we tell it (ie Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).
August 31st, 2005 at 1:12 pmI love this “Bolton is a great choice because he’ll represent America’s interests” argument. Because it implies that his predecessors – some of our most skilled and effective diplomats ever – somehow were not quite good enough in this regard.
And Red – rather than switch topics – just bear in mind that the current issue before the UN is “reform”, which rather implies that all parties think the UN, 60 years after its founding, needs to redefine its mission.
But here’s one big accomplishment for which the UN can claim some credit as it was an obvious founding objective – no World War 3. And to anyone who disses the UN without proper thought, it’s always worth asking this question: Would the Cold War have stayed cold without the UN? (when the stakes could not have been higher.)
As for an exclusive democracies-only club… can you not see the difficulties of telling eg Saudi, Pakistan and China they aren’t welcome? To my mind, better to have all countries as UN members, and have a more effective censuring process for those that don’t make an effort meet Charter obligations (which includes the right of self-determination, which is grown-up diplomatic speak for what Dubya calls freedom).
August 31st, 2005 at 1:25 pmGee, thanks for the civics lesson, CC.
August 31st, 2005 at 1:40 pmRoberts also does not believe privacy is a right. You gonna tell me what I should think about that, too?
Roberts WILL NOT be a supreme court justice.
To think that the right might hide documents and scam the public. Shocking. Think I’ll make myself a ham sandwich for lunch.
August 31st, 2005 at 1:53 pmCC, everyone tends to call decisions “activist” when they simply do not agree with their end result. The word has become so overused and used to describe so many different types of decisions as to be left, at this point, practically bereft of meaning—the word is an epithet, not a description of judicial philosophy. Basically, I’m just curious to know what decisions of the Court over the previous term you would consider to be “activist”?
August 31st, 2005 at 1:55 pmcj
“A judge is considered activist when he or she uses the power of judicial review to overturn laws or articulate new legal principles with insufficient precedent, especially for purposes of shaping government policy.”
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/judicial-activism
Key phrases: “overturn laws” and “shaping government policy” — these are NOT the responsiblity of the courts. Note: there can bo both liberal and conservative activists judges.
August 31st, 2005 at 3:40 pmcj,
To answer your question… the one that comes to mind immediately are the rulings on racial preferences. These are clearly racist policies and are most likely unconstitutional.
August 31st, 2005 at 3:48 pmAs for the finding of those “mislabeled files” the SNL Church Lady used to say , “How conveeenient!”
August 31st, 2005 at 10:00 pm#2, Gregg, this is not paranoia — this is having been hit over the head a few times by the administration and finally learning that they are crooks and liars, all! We do NOT trust them – we do NOT believe them – we do NOT like them.
August 31st, 2005 at 10:02 pmHiding documents to scam the U.S. citizens… Nice, very nice. The Neo-Cons have been taking close notes on Sandy Berger’s and Jamie Gorelick’s activities… they’ve learned from the best!!
September 6th, 2005 at 3:39 pm