On the Nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States

The President has chosen a nominee. The Senate must now decide not only whether he has the intellect, character and integrity to serve on the highest court in the land, but whether he will be fair, impartial and independent in the administration of justice, and whether he is committed to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms for all of our people. The Senate can carry out this responsibility only by conducting a thorough and searching inquiry into the nominee’s views of the Constitution and the judicial process. Only through such an inquiry can senators determine whether he harbors ideological preconceptions that place him outside the constitutional mainstream and would make it difficult for him to follow precedent or consider with an open mind each case that comes before him.

Having spent most of his career representing private clients and the government, Judge Roberts has served for only a brief period on the federal bench. It is too early to form a definitive judgment on how he would approach his responsibilities if confirmed. But the Senate should examine with care his writings and the many matters in which he represented the government–including a controversial brief in which he argued that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. The country has a right to know–and he deserves an opportunity to explain–whether the brief represented his personal views and whether it reflects his views today.

Supreme Court justices serve for a lifetime. The Senate must make sure it has all of the facts before giving its consent.

Crooks and Liars points out that there was a time when President Bush abhorred leaks. How adamant was the Bush administration about keeping classified information classified?

President Bush, 10/9/01:

Q Mr. President, when you meet with the congressional leadership tomorrow, will you be specific about what they can and cannot relay back up to the Hill? Or, do you just expect them not to relay anything?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m going to talk to the leaders about this. I have talked to them about it. I mean, when the classified information first seeped into the public, I called him on the phone and said, this can’t stand. We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest. But we’re now in extraordinary times. And I was in the — when those leaks occurred, by the way, it was right before we committed troops. And I knew full well what was about to happen. And yet, I see in the media that somebody, or somebodies, feel that they should be able to talk about classified information. And that’s just wrong. The leadership understands that…But I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk. I’m looking forward to reiterating that message…But one thing is for certain, I have made clear what I expect from Capitol Hill when it comes to classified information.

Press Briefing, 10/10/01:

Q Yesterday, the President made clear his point about leaks. He’s had breakfast today with congressional leaders. Is the President willing to go from eight to a higher number of congressmen and senators getting the information? And, if so, when would this occur?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me try to bring you up to speed on where we are. That issue did come up in the meeting with the four congressional leaders. And I think it’s fair to say, message received. There’s no doubt about it that the importance of keeping classified information classified has been stressed, and the President hopes that it will be closely, exactly adhered to.
[snip]
It’s important that members of Congress have information that they need to do their proper oversight activities; while at the same time, the President will continue to remind members of Congress about the importance of keeping classified information classified.
[snip]
Q When the members emerged, their perception was that the administration was going to be much more careful in what information it shared; that if it was classified or sensitive, they would share that information if it was past-tense information, what happened earlier today or yesterday. And the President made clear he would be much more reluctant because he doesn’t trust them to share “this is what’s going to happen tomorrow” information. Is that fair?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can’t speak about past tense; I haven’t heard that. But I can suggest to you that secrets will be kept secret. And the President knows that he will work with the Congress so that objective can be achieved. And he was satisfied with the meeting this morning; the leaders were satisfied with the meeting this morning. So I think it’s fair to say that from the members’ point of view, and the President’s, this issue has been addressed. And I hope there is a new sense of awareness throughout the government about the importance of keeping information classified.

For those who have tried so hard to downplay the importance of Valerie Plame’s outing; for those who say the leak wasn’t important because Plame worked at Langley; for those who say what Rove and Libby and others did wasn’t a blow to our intelligence services, we suggest you read President Ronald Reagan’s remarks at CIA headquarters upon signing the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (which the Plame leakers may have violated):

Whether you work in Langley or a faraway nation, whether your tasks are in operations or analysis sections, it is upon your intellect and integrity, your wit and intuition that the fate of freedom rests for millions of your countrymen and for many millions more all around the globe. …

Like those who are part of any silent service, your sacrifices are sometimes unappreciated; your work is sometimes misunderstood. Because you’re professionals, you understand and accept this. But because you’re human and because you deal daily in the dangers that confront this nation, you must sometimes question whether some of your countrymen appreciate the value of your accomplishments, the sacrifices you make, the dangers you confront, the importance of the warnings that you issue.

And that’s why I have come here today; first, to sign an important piece of legislation that bears directly on your work, an act of Congress whose overwhelming passage by the representatives of the American people is a symbol of their support for the job that you do every day. But even more than this, I’ve come here today to say to you what the vast majority of Americans would say if they had this opportunity to stand here before you. We’re grateful to you. We thank you. We’re proud of you.

Before he took office, President Bush set a high standard for the ethical conduct he expected for officials in his administration. Since his commandment to his staff that he “[expects] every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries (that) define legal and ethical conduct,” those standards have been plunging. The bar that was once set at “don’t come anywhere near violating the law” has now sadly become “don’t get convicted of violating the law.”

Resources for the President’s Team:
“Ethics in Government starts with you, as a leader in your agency…The Government ethics rules are the minimum acceptable standard of conduct. In other words, the rules spell out what is wrong, not what is right. Truly ethical conduct means doing less than the law allows and more than the law requires. Being an ethical leader involves more than acting ethically Your employees will look to you as a role model for public integrity. In addition, as a leader in your agency, you are responsible for the ethical compliance of your employees. Take an active role in promoting the importance of ethical conduct in the Federal workplace. Your commitment to maintaining high ethical standards will help ensure that the employees in your agency exemplify the principle that public service is a public trust If you are faced with a situation in which you believe that the ethics rules are implicated, your first step should be to discuss the matter with one of your agency’s ethics officials.”

Read more

It’s camp time!

President Herbert Hoover dubbed it “the greatest men’s party on earth.” Others have called it the most exclusive summer camp in the world. Every July, the top movers, shakers and hotshots retire to the depths of the redwood forests of Sonoma for a top secret, completely hush-hush retreat. (No chicks allowed, by the way — the camp is strictly Boys Only.) Situated seventy miles north of San Francisco on the Rusian River, the campground takes up 2,700 acres of redwood forest. And while there are extensive precautions to make sure regular Americans can’t get anywhere near it — sentries “scan the outside areas with binoculars” and “infra-red sensors protect the perimeters” — some shadowy tales of the goings on have leaked out. Here are some of the stories:

The club has approximately 2,500 members, with a combined wealth of an estimated $100 billion. Every Republican president since Coolidge has been a member, as well as a few on the other side of the aisle as well. Members include directors of Fortune 1000 companies, corporate CEOs, top government officials and business elites. The waiting list is 3,000 men strong and the average number of years spent on that list is anywhere from 15 to 20.

The list of former and current Grove campers is long and varied. Former guests include Henry Kissinger, Hearst, George Schultz, James Baker, Richard Nixon, the George Bushes, Newt Gingrich, members of the Bechtel family. In 2000, George Bush asked Cheney to be his running mate at the Bohemian Grove.

So, what do you do at the exclusive Grove? The men produce skits, musical acts, listen to speakers, eat drink and socialize. The last night of camp, the men put on an elaborate play with a cast of hundreds. Members stay in cabins with names like “Toyland,” “Dog House,” “Cave Mans” and “Sons of Toil.” (Last year, George H.W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stayed in “Hill Billies.”) But make no mistake, this is definitely a rich man’s playground, with private chefs, servants and waiters. And according to the New Statesmen, the no-girls-allowed policy means peeing on trees is all the rage.

The most recent conservative spin on the Karl Rove scandal: people just don’t care. Last night on Fox News, host Bill O’Reilly insulted the intelligence of the American people while attacking the media:

“As I said in the “Talking Points Memo”, folks don’t care about this. It doesn’t influence anybody’s life. All right? It doesn’t. But the media is not going to stop. The anti-Bush media. And it’s going to pound it, pound it, pound it [Fox News, July 18, 2005].”

Guest Dick Morris served up an equally rude response:

“Nobody cares about this story anywhere in the United States. The only reason that it’s being run is that there’s a reporter in jail. And another reporter was almost in jail. And the Democrats ran with this a year or two ago. And they’re out for blood against Rove, but voters don’t care [Fox News, July 18, 2005].”

But the research begs to differ with the Right’s theory. ABC News published a poll today that shows a sharp decline in public trust of the White House. In September 2003, when the Plume story broke, 47% of the public believed the administration was fully cooperating. That number has since plummeted to 25%. The poll also shows that 75% of the public believe that Karl Rove should be fired if he did leak information — a figure that varies only slightly in terms of party affiliation (71% of Republicans believe Rove should be fired, versus 83% of Democrats and 74% of independents). An equally high percentage has agreed that the scandal is a “serious matter.” The people do care. And apparently they’re not too happy with what they’re seeing.

–Grant Ginder

The AP is reporting:

President Bush will announce his nominee to the Supreme Court at 9 p.m. EDT, a senior administration official said.

This will be their attempt to change the message, as one Republican strategist has noted:

A Republican strategist with close ties to the White House said Bush could announce his pick as early as Tuesday.

The strategist said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove.

“It will happen any day,” the strategist said of the Supreme Court decision, adding that the aim is to “change the subject” from Rove.

UPDATE: Bloomberg reports, “Bush accelerated his search for a Supreme Court nominee in part because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leak of a CIA agent’s name, according to Republicans familiar with administration strategy.”

The National Review is having to quiet down its base. Apparently NR readers are giving rave reviews to Rep. Tancredo’s idea to nuke Mecca…

THIS IS SCARY [John Podhoretz]
Whole lotta folks writing in to defend the idea of bombing Mecca in retaliation for bombing here. Comparisons are being made to mutual assured destruction. Please, please, please, my friends, don’t give the Left such easy cause to resurface the old charge that conservatives (Tories) form “the stupid party.” And yes, no matter how long your e-mails run, the idea is stupid and Tom Tancredo is an idiot for mentioning it and that’s all there is to it.

This past Saturday, in his radio address, President Bush enunciated his guiding principles in choosing a Supreme Court nominee:

The nominee will meet the highest standards of intellect, character, and ability, and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country. Our nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of.

Would Karl Rove meet that standard? And why does Bush employ a higher standard for choosing a Court nominee than in employing his own personal White House staff (staff that reflects directly on him)?

Bush’s standard for White House staff:

I would like this [leak investigation to] end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

The latest victims of White House environmental policies: American newborns.

According to a new study released by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), babies today “enter the world with hundreds of industrial chemicals, solvents and pesticides in their veins.” In fact, newborn babies today have an average of a whopping 200 contaminants in their blood at birth. “The pollutants included mercury, fire retardants, pesticides and the Teflon chemical PFOA. ”

You can point your fingers directly at the current Environmental Protection agency. The allowed a group of eight power plants to submit a “wish list” of changes to weaken existing mercury regulations. In a side-by-side comparison of the rules and the power-plant memo, at least “a dozen paragraphs were lifted, sometimes verbatim, from the industry suggestions.”

Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office slammed the EPA for succumbing to White House pressure. The EPA was caught playing politics with scientific fact, disregarding evidence in order to “find” the pre-determined industry-friendly results the Bush administration needed to justify its polluter-friendly cap-and-trade plan.

Protecting industry polluters is dirty work. And now American kids are paying the price.