• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate panel asks Clinton library to turn over documents on Elena Kagan

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Reporting from Washington The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday set June 28 as the start date for hearings on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, and asked the Clinton presidential library to turn over voluminous documents related to Kagan's time as a top presidential assistant in the 1990s.

But Terri Garner, director of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum, said in an interview Wednesday that it would be "very difficult" for her facility to meet the deadline. She said the records request is overly broad and "too general in scope" and that, under the Presidential Records Act, attorneys for both Clinton and President Obama have the right to read and review each document before it is released to the committee.

"There are just too many things here," she said. "These are legal documents and they are presidential records, and they have to be read by an archivist and vetted for any legal restrictions. And they have to be read line by line."

Senate Judiciary Committee requests documents on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan - latimes.com


I mean arghhhhhhh!!!!!! What the heck is going on here? We have bills that are thousands of pages that no one reads. Now it seems too much trouble to vet an incoming SCOTUS nominee? Can we now label this administration as the least transparent in history?


j-mac
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So she hasn't ever really done anything in the courtroom, and it's too much trouble to look into what she did as a presidential assistant.....

So what do we do? Make sure she's current with her Blockbuster account?
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So she hasn't ever really done anything in the courtroom, and it's too much trouble to look into what she did as a presidential assistant.....

So what do we do? Make sure she's current with her Blockbuster account?

Well, I guess we just have to forego the usual process and just install her in.....


j-mac
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well the only reasonable thing to do is to delay the appointment until the lawyers read, line by line, all the material and release it. Maybe that'll take a few years. I'm fine with that. This should not go through without reading and making available all the materials she has produced. This BS delay tactic is about as stupid of an excuse as I've ever heard. Couldn't they simply say "The dog ate it all"?
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No resume right?...... No problem, we're used to that.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I mean arghhhhhhh!!!!!! What the heck is going on here? We have bills that are thousands of pages that no one reads. Now it seems too much trouble to vet an incoming SCOTUS nominee? Can we now label this administration as the least transparent in history?


j-mac
It seems they are willing to provide the documents but need time to read through and black out anything that isn't relevant to the request.

Would you suggest that the Presidential records just be handed over to the public without knowing what exactly is in them?
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I mean arghhhhhhh!!!!!! What the heck is going on here? We have bills that are thousands of pages that no one reads. Now it seems too much trouble to vet an incoming SCOTUS nominee? Can we now label this administration as the least transparent in history?
Excuse me, but how exactly does this relate to the transparency of the Obama administration? That last sentence of your post doesn't relate to anything in the article.

The Nominee has been vetted to the President's satisfaction. Hence the nomination.

On the surface, this looks like a weak tactic by the ranking member of the judiciary panel to drag out the hearings by making an overly broad request for documents.

This notion that a judicial nominee is not qualified simply because we believe he/she may make decisions that are not in line with our political agenda and philosophy is neither a check nor a balance.

The President gets to appoint judges. The qualifications should be a keen legal mind, the ability to listen to complex legal arguments, ask relevant questions, converse with the other justices, and write decisions when tasked to do so.

The request was made to the Clinton Library. The President doesn't work there. No one from the administration works there. The article says the library has asked for help sorting through the archives. So, why doesn't the judiciary panel send people from both sides to help? Then the ranking member can STFU and do his job--advise and consent. The WH doesn't need to lift a finger to help. It's truly fascinating watching the far-righties do summersaults and flips, stretching so hard and so far to relate everything back to the President.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Excuse me, but how exactly does this relate to the transparency of the Obama administration? That last sentence of your post doesn't relate to anything in the article.

The Nominee has been vetted to the President's satisfaction. Hence the nomination.

On the surface, this looks like a weak tactic by the ranking member of the judiciary panel to drag out the hearings by making an overly broad request for documents.

This notion that a judicial nominee is not qualified simply because we believe he/she may make decisions that are not in line with our political agenda and philosophy is neither a check nor a balance.

The President gets to appoint judges. The qualifications should be a keen legal mind, the ability to listen to complex legal arguments, ask relevant questions, converse with the other justices, and write decisions when tasked to do so.

The request was made to the Clinton Library. The President doesn't work there. No one from the administration works there. The article says the library has asked for help sorting through the archives. So, why doesn't the judiciary panel send people from both sides to help? Then the ranking member can STFU and do his job--advise and consent. The WH doesn't need to lift a finger to help. It's truly fascinating watching the far-righties do summersaults and flips, stretching so hard and so far to relate everything back to the President.
Excuse Us if we would like to know just a little of how this woman thinks before we give her a lifetime appointment! Or should we just take Barry's word for it?


j-mac
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Excuse Us if we would like to know just a little of how this woman thinks before we give her a lifetime appointment! Or should we just take Barry's word for it?


j-mac
What does Obama have to do with the Clinton Library stating that it will take time to go through all the documents before they can be handed over?
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What does Obama have to do with the Clinton Library stating that it will take time to go through all the documents before they can be handed over?

Overtly? I have no idea. But I don't trust this President as far as I can throw him. I would not put it past him to get on the horn and tell them to bury anything damaging.


j-mac
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Excuse Us if we would like to know just a little of how this woman thinks before we give her a lifetime appointment! Or should we just take Barry's word for it?
When did I ever say anything to the contrary?

You made a "transparency" comment, and I asked what the Clinton Library and its staff have to do with President Obama.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When did I ever say anything to the contrary?

You made a "transparency" comment, and I asked what the Clinton Library and its staff have to do with President Obama.

And I already said that I wouldn't put it past the administration to use someone within to slow that process at the Clinton library and massage parlor, then after words we find out something that is damaging to her, and all the demo's will say is 'ah well, too late'...... Nope, we should not let the hearings proceed until ALL information requested is handed over in full, and to the requesters satisfaction.


j-mac
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And I already said that I wouldn't put it past the administration to use someone within to slow that process at the Clinton library and massage parlor, then after words we find out something that is damaging to her, and all the demo's will say is 'ah well, too late'...... Nope, we should not let the hearings proceed until ALL information requested is handed over in full, and to the requesters satisfaction.
It's truly fascinating that you believe, in your head, the 'demo's' 'libos' and the rest are all working behind the scenes to screw with you.

They've got plenty of time to get all the docs-- the party of 'no' has made a weak attempt to stall, ripping us ALL off by skating out of work.

Do your job, Repubs. Advise, consent, move on.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
939
Reaction score
96
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This doesn't matter. The nomination process is a joke anyways.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,305
Reaction score
21,334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What does the Clinton Library have to do with the transparency of the Obama administration? Anybody calling this administration anything but transparent obviously hasn't heard of Nixon.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do your job, Repubs. Advise, consent, move on.
Glad you agree then that the Republicans are only doing their job by delaying the nomination until all of the requested documents are available.
 
Top Bottom