Surprise surprsie I got a form letter from DiFi

[nadinbrzezinski]

regarding Roberts, with the same plattitudes.... there are days I wonder

September 20, 2005

***********
***********
***********

Dear ********:

Thank you for writing to me about the nomination of Judge John
G. Roberts, Jr. to replace Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the
Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome this
opportunity to reply.

Now that the President has named his replacement for Chief
Justice Rehnquist, it is time for the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a
member, to do its work.

My Judiciary Committee staff is reviewing Mr. Roberts' entire
professional record to help me assess his judicial philosophy and
temperament, and we have begun the hearings. Attached is a copy of my
opening statement.

Judge Roberts has been nominated to lead a Court that will make
critical rulings on Congressional authority, as well as all Americans'
constitutional right to privacy, environmental protections, and many
other aspects of Constitutional law. The extraordinary importance of this
nomination cannot be overstated, so I intend to reserve judgment until
our due diligence is completed.

Thank you for sharing your views with me, and I will take them
into consideration as the nomination process moves forward. Should you
have any questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. staff
at [phone].

[gratuitous]

1. Dear DiFi

Thank you for your response to my letter regarding the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I have one or two points I'd like to clear up.

You state that you and your staff are "reviewing Mr. Roberts' entire professional record." It is my understanding that the Bush administration has withheld quite a bit of that record, citing some vague attorney-client privilege for not producing much of Mr. Roberts' work product as an attorney with the Justice Department. As I'm sure you're aware, the "client" for whom Mr. Roberts was doing work as a public attorney is the American people.

As I'm sure you will also recall, during the Starr investigation into alleged wrongdoing, an investigation that resulted in no criminal convictions, time and again the attorney-client privilege was breached for White House staff members who had hired their own attorneys at their own expense. As such, the assertion of any attorney-client privilege by this administration should be treated as stonewalling, rather than any legitimate invocation of privilege.

The American people are being asked to hire Mr. Roberts for a lifetime position. As our representative on the committee considering his qualifications, I request that you exert all reasonable effort to review the entirety of Mr. Roberts' record in the public and the private sector, and if the White House continues to stonewall, that you place a hold on his nomination until a fully informed decision about his qualification for this very important position can be made.

With the examples of Michael Brown at FEMA and John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, I'm sure you can appreciate the extensive credibility problems the Bush administration has when it basically says "trust us" on another political appointee.

[Sub Atomic]

2. great reply

but too bad Di won't listen to you.

Unless you're planning on donating a couple hundred thou to her.

She needs to go.