In the same post, Jonah brings up (and defends) the Minuteman Project, a group that even President Bush labeled as vigilantes. The efforts of the Minuteman Project drew “major interest on White supremacist Web sites and in their chat rooms. An Aryan Nation site [linked] directly to the Minuteman Project home page with the words: “A call for action on part of ALL ARYAN SOLDIERS.” Jonah scolds Sheehan for using “rhetoric [that] is appealing to a wide range of groups who practice similar rhetoric” and yet claims the Minutemen “have been working hard to weed out the nuts and goons rhetorically and practically.”

He’s talking about the same Minutemen Project that absolutely used rhetoric laced with venom — claiming the nation is being “devoured and plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal aliens” and predicting “political, economic and social mayhem.”

Now that he’s received some critical email, Goldberg doesn’t want to talk about the issue anymore. This morning he announced that he’s “not going to spend the day discussing this whole thing any more.”

Good call.

Back in 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act out of fear that “President Richard Nixon would never allow public access to his papers.” The Act states that “a former president’s papers belong to the American people” and it is the duty of the National Archives to make the papers available to the public. The law also allowed “former presidents to prevent access to some records for up to 12 years.”

In his last two days in office, Reagan issued an executive order requiring “that both the current and former president be given 30 days’ notice before the release of any presidential papers. During that time, the current or former administration could demand further delays to check for any documents that might fall under executive privilege.” Reagan claimed the full 12 years before his papers were to be released.

In 2001, the deadline on the Reagan papers was up. The Archivist gave notice to the White House as well as the Office of President Reagan. According to the Stanford Law Review, the papers were ready and President Reagan’s representative gave the okay for release, stating “that Reagan’s Administration did not desire to claim privilege on any of the withheld records, and that it had no problem with all of them being released to the public.”

But the papers weren’t released. President Bush wouldn’t allow it.

The “[Bush] White House asked for three extensions to review these papers. According to John Carlin, the National Archivist, none of the…documents in question were ever examined by White House officials.” [Stanford Law Review, 11/1/02] That’s because Bush administration officials weren’t reviewing the papers, they were reviewing the law itself.

The White House filed for extension after extension until President Bush issued his own executive order, giving “the White House or former presidents veto powers on the release” of presidential papers.

It is that November 1st, 2001 Executive Order the White House has been using to justify “vetting thousands of pages of Roberts’ papers archived at the Reagan Library before deciding which ones it will provide the Senate in anticipation of Roberts’ confirmation hearings.”

In other words, the affirmative action file on Roberts would have been in the public domain – rather than lost somewhere in Neverland – as far back as 2001…if it weren’t for President Bush.

I have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald. He’s a career prosecutor. He’s a tough prosecutor. That’s why he was put in charge of this case, because people want to get to the bottom of it. And that’s why it is so outrageous that these partisan smears would occur this past week. The question is this: Do the people that are smearing Karl Rove not have confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald? Do they not think, in fact, he’s going to get to the bottom of it? Or would they rather, than getting to the facts, try to make political gain?

Host Tim Russert then asked Mehlman the obvious questions: “If, in fact, he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?…Will you pledge today, because you have tremendous confidence in him, that you will not criticize his decision?” Despite the urgings of Russert (and Center for American Progress CEO John Podesta), Mehlman would not take that step.

Bob Dole’s attack today on Patrick Fitzgerald may quite possibly be the first warning shots of a coming right-wing campaign to undermine Fitzgerald. Is someone in the White House getting nervous?

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League: Donohue “suggested a constitutional amendment to say that ‘unless a judicial vote is unanimous, you cannot overturn a law created by Congress.’ The court is trying to ‘take the hearts and souls of our culture.’” He also laid out his plans for domination: “Catholics and other Christians together, we are going to move to the front of the bus and take command of the wheel.”

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: After denouncing America’s judicial system as “judicial supremacy, judicial autocracy,” DeLay blasted recent Supreme Court rulings: “Rights are invented out of whole cloth. Longstanding traditions are found to be unconstitutional. Moral values that have defined the progress of human civilization for millennia are cast aside in favor of those espoused by a handful of unelected, lifetime-appointed judges.” He continued on to state that “All wisdom does not reside in nine persons in black robes. The Constitution is clear on the point that the power to make laws is vested on Congress.” He continued, “This fact, understood by every high school civics student, has been forgotten in recent decades by too many members of the American judiciary, including, most notably, the United States Supreme Court itself,’ he said.”

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family: “America’s most powerful judges are ‘unelected, unaccountable and arrogant.’” He continued on to say, “These activist, unelected judges believe they know better than the American people about the direction the country should go. The framers of our great nation did not intend for the courts to have absolute and final power over us.”

Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum: “How do the judges get away with such outrageous decisions? By asserting that Supreme Court decisions are the supreme law of the land. But you know that is not true. That is a terrible heresy.”

In endorsing extension of the Voting Rights Act, the President has taken a strong step advocated by civil rights activists. The only ones who could be disappointed by the President’s actions are not those truly concerned about the right to vote but rather those who, for whatever reason, were simply spoiling for a fight that never materialized.

In 1981, John Roberts wrote the above statement to close out the draft of an op-ed responding to publicly published criticisms from then-president of the National Urban League Vernon Jordan. Roberts’ eagerness to dabble in politics is interesting, especially considering the present administration’s attempts to paint him as simply an advocate of a client. What is more interesting, however, are his attempts at revisionist history.

When California governor Ronald Reagan kicked off his bid for the presidency the year before, “he began his campaign with a controversial appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers had been brutally killed. It was at that sore spot on the racial map that Reagan revived talk about states’ rights and curbing the power of the federal government. To many it sounded like code for announcing himself as the candidate for white segregationists.” That same year, Reagan publicly opposed the landmark Voting Rights Act, calling it “humiliating to the South.”

Roberts certainly was no champion of civil rights either. In his time with the Reagan administration, “he wrote vigorous defenses of the administration’s version of a voting rights bill, opposed by Congress, that would have narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act [and] he wrote a memo arguing that it was constitutionally acceptable for Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its ability to hear broad classes of civil rights cases.”

What Reagan did by signing an extension of the Voting Rights Act pales in comparison to how much the President and his administration did to undermine the very same legislation.

Bobbie, from Dallas, TX writes:
Everybody keeps talking about how the economy is growing and so good yet I have been out of work for 6 12 months now. I am a legal assistant with 15 years of experience. Law Firms seem to be looking for people with 2 to 5 years of experience so they can pay them less. I need a job now, what help is there for me?

Al Hubbard
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the job situation has improved dramatically over the past 2 years. Just last month the economy created over 200,000 new jobs. My suggestion to you is to remain persistent in your job hunt and I am sure you will find the right job for you.

There’s a reason why Hubbard had to sidestep Bobbie’s question: the heavily-touted economic recovery isn’t as rosy as the administration is making it out to be. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “Employment and wage and salary growth are especially slow in the current period, underperforming not only the historical average but, in the case of employment growth, every comparable period since the end of World War II.”

But don’t worry Bobbie, you just keep being persistent. Looking for a job is hard work.

Texas, Georgia and even Mississippi have all passed tort reform to improve their economies and stop the exodus of doctors. But now bidding to take their place as a favorite trial lawyer destination is the previously sensible state of Wisconsin, led by its Supreme Court.

[snip]

The 4-3 court majority offered the highly creative judgment that caps on [noneconomic] damages are “patently arbitrary” with “no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.” But if discouraging frivolous legal claims to make health care more affordable and available for regular citizens isn’t “a legitimate government interest,” we’d like to know what is.

The WSJ backs up their conservative position with the claim that “recent studies” have shown noneconomic damages, which make up more than 70% of malpractice awards, are the damages that “tend to drive up insurance rates and drive doctors to other states.”

It’s no surprise that the WSJ doesn’t actually cite the study that backs up these dubious claims. On the contrary, the New York University Law Review published a comprehensive study of 22 states found that “the imposition of caps on noneconomic damages has no statistically significant effect on overall compensatory damages in medical malpractice jury verdicts or trial court judgments”.

In fact, the caps are sometimes the cause of the problem. In what has been described as the crossover effect, researchers have found that “[where] noneconomic damages are limited by caps, plaintiffs’ attorneys will more vigorously pursue, and juries will award, larger economic damages, which are often unbounded.”

Colson on Karl Rove: “I happen to know Karl Rove quite well and I find him to be a very decent man; no touch of arrogance. So, I think he’s being badly abused in this process and those of us who were inside the bunkers of the White House during the Nixon years, know exactly what it’s like to go through that kind of fire.” [CNN, 7/14/05]

Colson on Sen. Edward Kennedy: “[In] the hours after the May 15, 1972, assassination attempt against Alabama Gov. George Wallace, then a Democratic presidential candidate, Nixon counsel Charles Colson is heard on tape urging Felt to aggressively pursue theories that the gunman may have been tied to Nixon nemesis Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) or the anti-war movement.” [Chicago Tribune, 6/2/05]

Colson on “Deep Throat” Mark Felt: “I don’t think it was a noble act at all I’ve worked for the last 30 years preaching the gospel of Christ in prisons all across America. Today there are 2.1 million people in prison, and the one single characteristic I’ve discovered is, every one of them has not had moral training. They’re like feral children. They come up off the streets. And if they get the message that somebody can break the law in a noble purpose, and can justify it, that’s a terrible thing. [CNN, 6/5/05]

Just now on CNN’s Inside Politics, in the midst of a ho-hum discussion about Katherine Harris’ Senate race:

Novak: Just let me finish what I’m going to say, James, please. I know you hate to hear me —

Carville: He’s got to show these right-wingers that he’s got a back bone, ya know? Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching. You show ‘em you’re tough…

Novak: You know I think that’s bullshit. And I hate that. Just let it go.

Novak removes his microphone and walks off the set.

Update I: Novak Was About to Be Asked About Leak The Inside Politics host ended the Carville/Novak segment saying, “Thanks, James Carville. And I’m sorry as well that Bob Novak left the set a little early. I had told him in advance that we were going to ask about the CIA leak case, he was not here for me to be able to ask him about that. Hopefully, we’ll be able to ask him about that in the future.”

Update II: Media Matters has the video.

Update III: Flashback to the first time Ed Henry challenged Novak to talk about the Plame leak, on June 29. Novak wasn’t very happy then, either:

HENRY: Do you understand why in general there’s frustration among fellow journalist after 41 years of distinguished work, where you’ve always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public’s right to know, you’re not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.

NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That’s very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don’t think they should be going to jail.

HENRY: Yes. But I didn’t say you were the cause. But there are some people…

NOVAK: Yes, you do did.

HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.

NOVAK: But you don’t know — Ed, you don’t know anything about the case. And those people who say that don’t know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I’d like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney’s advice I can’t. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.

HENRY: We’ll all be waiting to hear that story finally told, Bob.

Roberts, in Reid’s view, left no doubt that he would be very reluctant to overturn precedents. To do so, Roberts had said, the Court would first have to consider a series of objective criteria, two of which stood out: whether a precedent fostered stability in the nation; and the extent to which society had come to rely on an earlier ruling, even a dubious one.

Unfortunately, Roberts’ responses are now being heralded as an indication of where he stands on Roe v Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that ensured a woman’s right to privacy. However, according to conservatives, Roe v Wade actually meets the two criteria that jumped out at Reid:

Did the precedent foster stability in the nation?

Not in the viewpoint of conservatives. In fact, just a few months ago NYT columnist David Brooks declared, “Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since ”

Has society come to rely on the earlier ruling?

Rather than rely on the ruling, conservatives have been actively working to undermine it. In an address to the annual meeting of the Conservative Caucus Foundation, a conservative lawyer argued that, “In many states, statutes prohibiting abortion remain unrepealed and available to local prosecutors to bring criminal actions against abortion providers Even in states where the statutes have been changed to conform to the Roe formula, a prosecutor may still have ample authority under the state’s law and constitution to bring criminal actions against abortion promoters and providers.” He concluded by asserting that, “Rightfully understood, [the local prosecutor's] duty is to interpose their office between Roe v. Wade, a constitutionally erroneous opinion, and the people whose rights they are duty bound to protect.”

Now the AP reports that an “estimated $24 billion in the [highway] bill [is] set aside for highways, bus stops, parking lots and bike trails requested by lawmakers.” In fact, with over 6, 000 special projects, the bill sets a new record for pork barrel politics. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), “one of only four senators to oppose the bill,” described it as “egregious and remarkable.” Here are some of the “favors” that found their way in:

- $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Weedsport, N.Y.

- $330 million for a highway in Bakersfield., Calif.

- $480,000 to rehabilitate a historic warehouse on the Erie Canal

- $3 million for dust control mitigation on Arkansas rural roads.

- $2.3 million for landscaping on the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California (Truly ironic is the fact that Pres. Reagan once vetoed a highway bill because of its exorbitant spending expenses)

The vice president of policy for Taxpayers for Common Sense concluded, “This bill will be known as the most earmarked transportation bill in the history of our nation.” It also could be known as the bill that shows quite how vain lawmakers can be:

- Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) set aside $231 million for a bridge near Anchorage to be named “Don Young’s Way”

- Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) “used his seniority” to “secure $16 million for the eponymous Nick J. Rahall II Appalachian Transportation Institute at Marshall University”

[On] the issue of abortion, the President has made it very clear that there are ways — common sense, practical ways that we can work together to reduce the number of abortions in America. And he has worked to do that, if you look at what we have done, by placing a ban on partial birth abortion, by supporting efforts to increase adoption. The President is strongly committed to finding ways we can work together to reduce the number of abortions in America.

It’s a rather limited effort if the administration is reducing the number of abortions only by working to reduce the number of pregnancies that end in abortion. It’s like hacking away at the branches instead of going after the roots. The fact is that “the United States has among the highest rates of unintended pregnancies of all industrialized nations. Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, and nearly half of those end in abortion.” An obvious way to reduce the number of pregnancies that end in abortion is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in the first place. Unfortunately, one of the President’s favorite initiatives — abstinence only education — may actually be counterproductive to this effort.

In updating its teen pregnancy policy, a leading group of experts — the American Academy of Pediatrics — stated that “Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy.” Instead, “teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases.”

By continuing to pursue abstinence only education, President Bush is prioritizing conservatism over compassion and undermining his own efforts to reduce the number of abortions in our nation.

On August 9, 2001, shortly after I outlined my principles (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851), President Bush announced his policy on embryonic stem cell research. His policy was fully consistent with my ten principles, so I strongly supported it. It federally funded embryonic stem cell research for the first time. It did so within an ethical framework. And it showed respect for human life.

[snip]

While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases. Therefore, I believe the President’s policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding (and thus NIH oversight) and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully staying within ethical bounds.

Then again, maybe Frist is just trying to prove he still deserves that MD degree.

Original in PDF

July 28, 2005

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Madam Secretary:

It has just come to my attention that then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was interviewed on July 18, 2003 by the State Department Office of the Inspector General in connection with a joint State Department/CIA IG investigation related to the alleged Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger. This information would appear to be inconsistent with information that Mr. Bolton provided to the Committee on Foreign Relations during the Committee’s consideration of his pending nomination to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

The Committee on Foreign Relations expects all nominees to provide to it accurate and timely information. Indeed, in submitting the Committee’s questionnaire, all nominees are required to swear out an affidavit stating that the information provided is “true and accurate.” It now appears that Mr. Bolton’s answers may not meet that standard. I write, therefore, to request that you review this matter to determine whether incomplete or inaccurate information was provided by Mr. Bolton.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member

Q How do you take Senator Durbin’s comments? What’s your response to his comments?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, this is, I’m sure, a family program, Steve. I have to be careful what I say. (Laughter.) I thought Durbin was totally out of line But I just — it was so far over the top that I’m just appalled that anybody who serves in the United States Senate would even think those thoughts.

Q How is the President reacting to [Senator Durbin's comments]?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the Senator’s remarks are reprehensible simply beyond belief.

So the question at today’s press briefing about the remarks of Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) certainly seemed like a softball:

QUESTION: Representative Tom Tancredo recently suggested that taking out Muslim holy sites might be a good way to fight terrorism. Now, his statement has been showing up in newspapers throughout the Muslim world. Will the White House ask Mr. Tancredo to apologize and retract his statement as it did with Senator Durbin?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, I think the State Department actually addressed this issue right at the time and they expressed the views of the administration. The president has made very clear that it Islam is a religion that teaches peace and that it is a proud and great religion. And he stated his views on it.

A United States congressman calls for the bombing of Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, refuses to apologize, and this is the best McClellan could come up with. Bombing Mecca isn’t “reprehensible” or “simply beyond belief”?

“She’s leaving when the president has one of the highest approval ratings on record. From here, it can only go down. And when it does, you know who they’re going to blame. They’re gonna blame Andy Card!”

[snip]

“The key balance around here has been between Karen and Karl Rove. That’s what I’ve been doing from the start of this administration. Standing on the middle of the seesaw, with Karen on one side, Karl on the other, trying to keep it in balance. One of them just jumped off.” He throws himself onto the couch to demonstrate, then he exhales again and talks about how he might restore balance, a balance that he knows will be needed if this presidency is not to suffer. “I’ll need designees, people trusted by the president that I can elevate for various needs to balance against Karl. They are going to have to really step up, but it won’t be easy. Karl is a formidable adversary.”

Since 1870, when Congress passed legislation officially creating the solicitor general’s position, it has been widely accepted that the solicitor general has but one client: the U.S. government. Historically, the office has always been respected for its nonpartisanship: “For example, no modern presidents were more partisan — or more politically opposite — than Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Yet former Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold served as solicitor general for both these presidents.”

“It was not until the Reagan presidency that the office was first truly politicized.” Under President Reagan, solicitor general Charles Fried “sought to advance conservative political efforts by urging the Supreme Court to outlaw affirmative action and overturn Roe v. Wade.” In his “most memorable case” — Bob Jones University v. United States — Fried “argued that schools that discriminate against blacks should still be accorded tax breaks.” This position has been described as “a case that most all his predecessors (at least since the Civil War) and successors would have resigned before presenting to the court.” A former Supreme Court justice has described Fried’s work as “hardly the mark of a reasoned approach to the law. It’s ideology, pure and simple. It’s an assault on settled practices.”

But Fried was far from the mastermind behind these efforts. The person responsible for breaking decades of precedent to use the solicitor general’s office to promote conservative causes was then-Attorney General Edwin Meese.

And who served as assistant attorney general in the first administration to politicize the office of the solicitor general? John Roberts Jr.

Is this the reason why the Bush administration wants to keep Roberts’ own work as solicitor general under wraps?