Attorney General's Office Refuses Release of Key Roberts Records
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 8/8/2005
If internal Solicitor General and similar documents for Robert Bork and William Rehnquist were released during the consideration of their judicial branch nominations, why not for John Roberts?Civil rights groups have questioned the break in precedent represented by the refusal of the attorney general's office late Friday to release key documents from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' time as the political deputy to Solicitor General Ken Starr during George H.W. Bush's administration.
"What does the White House have to hide?" said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR).
Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats had requested records involving 16 of the 81 Supreme Court cases in which Roberts wrote briefs during his time at the Solicitor General's office.
The attorney general's office said that release of the documents would be "simply contrary to the public interest."
Civil rights organizations sharply disagree, saying that in light of the documents from Roberts' time in the Reagan Justice Department that raise troubling questions about Roberts' views on important civil rights issues such as voting rights, court-ordered desegregation remedies, and Title IX, the refusal to turn over the Solicitor General records hampers the Senate's ability to conduct a full and thorough investigation.
Solicitor General memos and similar documents were released during other judicial confirmation proceedings, including the Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and William Rehnquist, according to People for the American Way, whose web site includes several citations to the nominees' hearing records.
Civil rights groups also point to comments from Senators that belie the application of any attorney-client privilege, including the statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R. Utah, on the Senate floor: "No statute or Senate or House rule applies the attorney-client privilege to Congress. In fact, both the Senate and the House have explicitly refused to formally include the privilege in their rules. . . . This body cannot simply take the President's claim of privilege against Congress at face value. To do so would be to surrender an important constitutional obligation."
"The Constitution gives senators the responsibility to make an independent evaluation of the president's nominees," said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. "But they can't do their job if they aren't given access to records that will let them evaluate Roberts' approach to our Constitution and laws."
"By withholding documents from Roberts' stint at the Solicitor General's Office, the White House is cheating the Senate, the American people and Roberts himself. They are making it all but impossible for the Senate to fairly evaluate Roberts' record, which is a disservice to all parties," said LCCR Executive Director Henderson.
