Monday, August 22, 2005
Answering Hugh Hewitt's Call
Hugh has asked bloggers to review parts of the great Roberts Document Dump. So working through Radioblogger, I took this rather unexciting box.
The box was subject: School Prayer, which I thought might be fun, but found this particular box routine. This particular box contained two "sets" of documents, one relating to Senate Bill 47, 1985, a bill which sought to limit the power of the Supreme Court to make judgements concerning school prayer. The other set concerned a SCOTUS decision, Wallace v. Jaffree, which struck down an Alabama law providing for a moment of silence in Alabama schools.
The set relating to S 47 contained three document. A memo (5/6/85) from JGR to Fred Fielding (White House counsel and JGR's boss) rendering an opinion of the proposed S 47, as requested by the Office of Management and Budget, a copy of the memo (5/1/85) from OMB making the request for opinion, and a copy of S47 itself.
The JGR to FF memo contained one very pertinent paragraph:
The set addressing Wallace v Jaffree also contained 3 documents. The first was a memo JGR to FF, dated 6/4/85 analysing the decision. His basic analysis is that the decision leaves room for a better drafted "Moment of Silence" bill, but renders no opinion on the wisdom of doing so. The second document is a memo FF to Russell Mack (same date) in the White House Public Affairs office advising on possible comments on the decision. A hand note on the document seems to indicate that it was never sent, but it is referenced in the first memo, and thus its inclusion. Finally, the bulk of this box is devoted to a copy of the actual Wallace v Jaffree decision itself.
In sum, I see little, or nothing, in this box that can be used to attack Roberts nomination from the left. If anything, those on the right might be disturbed at his apparent unwillingness to limit the court, but it would be foolish for those on the right to press that issue since Roberts actual presence on the court will accomplish the same thing.
The box was subject: School Prayer, which I thought might be fun, but found this particular box routine. This particular box contained two "sets" of documents, one relating to Senate Bill 47, 1985, a bill which sought to limit the power of the Supreme Court to make judgements concerning school prayer. The other set concerned a SCOTUS decision, Wallace v. Jaffree, which struck down an Alabama law providing for a moment of silence in Alabama schools.
The set relating to S 47 contained three document. A memo (5/6/85) from JGR to Fred Fielding (White House counsel and JGR's boss) rendering an opinion of the proposed S 47, as requested by the Office of Management and Budget, a copy of the memo (5/1/85) from OMB making the request for opinion, and a copy of S47 itself.
The JGR to FF memo contained one very pertinent paragraph:
You may recall discussing this type of legislation with me in the past. After exhaustive review at the Department of Justice I determined were within the constitutional powers of Congress to fix the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as Congress shall make," Art. III, ยง 2, cl. 2. I also concluded that such bills were bad policy and should be opposed on policy grounds.Well, a stance like this could hardly be considered fodder for the opposition to Roberts nomination, in fact it should give them a nice warm feeling inside. Here's a guy that thinks the Consitution gives Congress the right to set SCOTUS jurisdiction (think the Schiavo situation) but that itis bad policy for Congress to exercise that right. In other words, this guy guards pretty carefully the power of the court.
The set addressing Wallace v Jaffree also contained 3 documents. The first was a memo JGR to FF, dated 6/4/85 analysing the decision. His basic analysis is that the decision leaves room for a better drafted "Moment of Silence" bill, but renders no opinion on the wisdom of doing so. The second document is a memo FF to Russell Mack (same date) in the White House Public Affairs office advising on possible comments on the decision. A hand note on the document seems to indicate that it was never sent, but it is referenced in the first memo, and thus its inclusion. Finally, the bulk of this box is devoted to a copy of the actual Wallace v Jaffree decision itself.
In sum, I see little, or nothing, in this box that can be used to attack Roberts nomination from the left. If anything, those on the right might be disturbed at his apparent unwillingness to limit the court, but it would be foolish for those on the right to press that issue since Roberts actual presence on the court will accomplish the same thing.
