Posted by Joseph Knippenberg
Heres the report, which Ill try to read tonight. You would, of course, not be shocked by the bottom line: the PFAW doesnt think he should be confirmed.
I scanned the last part briefly and have not even come close to finishing it but I would like to make an observation.
At the end they try to establish that a precedent has already been set on releasing of documents in the Solictor Generals office. I would I find compeling is the way they try to use Robert Bork as an example. Let me explain. Out of the 4 examples used three of them are clearly from the ATTORNEY GENERALs office TO the Solicitor Generals office. (pg 50) I think this is a grave distiniction. The fourth example (which is actually the first presented) is to the ATTORNEY GENERALs office and not anything internal but something that was given to the Attorney General office knowing full well that it could become public, which I also think is a small but important distinction.
I would like to hear what Rob Howse has to say on matter as he seems to be a reasonably tempered authority on the matter.
Ashbrook Center at Ashland University | 401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 | (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)