Confused about why Begala did not approve of seeking documents on Roberts.

[madfloridian]

He was on CNN today with Wolf...easy going, not really standing up much. I am pretty sure of what he said...that he thought it was not proper or productive (not sure of the exact words)to keep asking for documents about Roberts' tenure with Bush #1. He said that just questioning him during the hearing would be enough.

I thought that was very strange indeed in light of the fact that the DNC has just requested some very specific documents via FOIA. Why in the world would Begala disappove or even care?

Here is the purpose of the DNC inquiry which a lot of us signed:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/08/80000_foia_requ.php

"More than 80,000 concerned Americans signed on to our Freedom of Information Act request demanding the details of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts's work on 16 crucial cases during his tenure in the first President Bush's office of Solicitor General.

Those 16 cases deal with the most important issues facing the Supreme Court, including civil rights, equal opportunity for all, women's rights, our right to privacy, and access to justice. It's crucial that the Senators approving Roberts's nomination have access to this information to help them determine whether Roberts will protect our basic rights or let partisan ideology guide his decisions.

The response was tremendous. We've printed and boxed up the thousands of pages of signatures and sent them via courier to the Justice Department. The administration has just 20 days to respond to our request, and we'll keep you updated."

Here is something from the DNC email earlier today:

"Just looking at the public record, you can discern a pattern of hostility to civil rights. Here are a few of the cases we requested information on:

Metro Broadcasting v FCC (1990)
Roberts argued against letting the FCC use affirmative action in distributing broadcast licenses. This case was a rare instance of the Solicitor General stepping in to block an action of the federal government to increase opportunity.

Board of Education of Oklahoma City v Dowell (1991)
In a brief signed by John Roberts, the Solicitor General's office argued against a court ruling that ordered a school district to prevent racial segregation. Roberts's brief opposed the efforts of African American families to argue that Oklahoma schools would become segregated again.

Freeman v Pitts (1992)
Roberts signed a brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn a lower-court decision that required a Georgia school district to ensure its schools were fully desegregated.

Lee v Weisman (1992)
Roberts filed a Supreme Court brief arguing that a school district should be permitted to invite clergy to lead public prayers at a graduation ceremony.

Voinovich v Quilter (1993)
Roberts co-authored a brief supporting an Ohio redistricting plan that minority voters said violated the Voting Rights Act by concentrating minority voters in a small number of districts.

What little we know about John Roberts's record on civil rights is troubling -- at the very least. In his work in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, he demonstrated a consistent hostility to efforts to ensure equal opportunity and justice as guaranteed to every American under our Constitution. But there's more that we just don't know. That's why we need the full story."

Documents the DNC printed off and delivered this week.

[gratuitous]

1. Begala's okay with Roberts lying his ass off?

Because without access to his full record, that's exactly what Roberts will be doing. Powell did it, Rice did it, Bolton did it, Rumsfeld did it, Feith did it, Wolfowitz did it, Cheney did it, and Bush did it. Does Begala think someone from this crooked administration will suddenly start telling the truth, based on what we already know they've lied about?

Ring, ring! Clue phone for Paul Begala!

[madfloridian]

2. I am checking back for the transcript, but it sounded pretty casual.

Part of the Situation Room transcript is up, so I will check back.

[madfloridian]

3. Transcript on this:

BLITZER: And a lot of people are speaking out about John Roberts, the president's nominee for the Supreme Court. It will get a little more intense starting September 6th, when the confirmation hearings get underway.

As far as you can tell, what is the Democratic, Democratic strategy -- Democratic party, Democratic supporters -- the strategy as far as John Roberts is concerned, right now?

BEGALA: Well, that's the problem: There's two or three; some are pretty smart, some aren't. One strategy that some Democrats on the Hill are pursuing, which I don't think is very wise, is a process- based strategy: Give us more documents, give us more paper.

You know, maybe we should have them, maybe not, but that's not a good reason to vote down a Supreme Court justice. The smarter strategy: The Democrats who are saying, we want to ask you basic questions under oath when you come for your confirmation hearings, Judge.

We want to know, do you think the Constitution allows abortion or prohibits? Do you think the Constitution allows affirmative action or prohibits it. What did you mean, Judge, when you said that equal pay for women was a radical scheme? Things like that. The substance of the record is where the debate ought to be, not the process.

I disagree with Begala, and I think at least asking for the documents is a good idea. I can just imagine Roberts answering those questions. Yeh, right.

And what in the heck does this talking point from Begala mean?

"The substance of the record is where the debate ought to be, not the process."

That makes no sense at all.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Perhaps more of the spineless we Dems must not appear to be too "negative"

I disagree. The documents the Democrats are asking from when Roberts was Principle Deputy Solicitor General under Bush I are not an unreasonable request, and the Dems are not asking for pertinent documents for that many cases.

[madfloridian]

8. I think you are right about not wanting to appear negative.

I am getting tired of being so positive when we need facts. I was very cross when Begala said that...same week the DNC asked for the documents. A little twist of the knife.

[gratuitous]

6. It's such an easy, elementary point

The White House nominates someone, the White House provides all the documents it has on that person. If the White House isn't willing to let the Senate perform its constitutionally mandated function, then the Senate shouldn't confirm the nominee.

Begala's rolling over. Too bad. But I'm sure there will always be some Democrat eager for lessons on how to be "substantive" without any process, so Begala's kids won't starve anytime soon.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Paul has a pernicious case of malignant Texas swaggerosis

It's a posturing tough-guy form of proto-masculinity. He needs to strut as a successful commoner and brag about sport killing as he shows pictures of himself with dead deer, and he LOVES to ridicule people, even to the extreme of passing out Kentucky Fried Chicken to the studio audience and eating a drumstick as he interviews a PETA spokesperson.

Still, he hits the reactionaries hard at times, between appeasements

He likes making fun of peoples looks, and he is incredibly juvenile.

Statements like this hit hard with serious questions, then devolve into some kind of gibberish. It sounds like he's saying--as many do--that it'll make the Democrats look obstructionist if they keep demanding records and such. Fuck that. I want these asshole greedheads on the right to know that they're going to have to fight for EVERYTHING. It'll make them pick their battles somewhat, instead of trying to run the table.

[madfloridian]

7. Texas swaggerosis

Oh, yeah, I can agree with that. :evilgrin: