Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Privilege at Stake With Nominees
Bush Aims to Reassert Presidential Power in Debate Over Roberts, Bolton
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; A06
At the heart of battles over President Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court and United Nations is a broader -- and largely successful -- campaign to reassert executive prerogatives lost under his predecessor and limit public access to the internal workings of government.
In the case of both nominations, Democratic senators demanded certain documents from executive branch deliberations to help them evaluate Bush's choices, and he refused. The president got around Democratic opposition to John R. Bolton yesterday by giving him a 17-month recess appointment as ambassador to the United Nations. Now the two sides face a weeks-long stare-down over John G. Roberts Jr. heading into confirmation hearings after Labor Day.
The principle at stake is one that has been a source of friction over the limits of presidential power since George Washington. Under President Bill Clinton, multiple clashes with Congress, the judiciary and independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr chipped away at attorney-client and executive privileges on sensitive documents and conversations. But since coming to power, Bush has doggedly reclaimed turf that eroded under Clinton, asserting the power of his office to shield everything from energy policy deliberations to the papers of past presidents.
"For better or worse, the Bush administration has done a much more effective job than we did of protecting privileges," said Ronald A. Klain, a lawyer who served as chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore.
Clinton waged many battles over privileges but lost some of them in court and surrendered others in the interest of damage control. In a showdown with the Senate opposition over something like the Roberts papers, Klain recalled, a politically and legally weakened Clinton White House often would find a compromise to end the dispute.
"I have no doubt that if that had been us, we would have turned over the papers," Klain said. "I'm not saying that's a good thing; I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But whenever we walked up to the brink, we blinked. And these guys don't, and they're prepared to pay the price for it."
The fights over the Roberts and Bolton papers have demonstrated that the merits of presidential privileges often hinge as much on political interest as legal principle. Some of those who argued most vociferously against the use of privilege to withhold documents during the Clinton administration now find themselves on the opposite side, and vice versa.
Starr, for instance, regularly rejected privilege claims during the Whitewater and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations. But in the Roberts case, the White House cites a letter signed by all living former solicitors general opposing disclosure of internal working papers from that office -- including Starr, who held that post under President George H.W. Bush and was Roberts's supervisor....
nakedemperor said:Creating a "stronger" executive branch, in this article, seems to be directly correlated to what is known as "stonewalling".
So Bush is willing to run the most secretive administration since Nixon; so he's willing to give the littlest information and offer the fewest press conferences of any president since the color t.v.; so he's willing to bypass the Geneva convention "just because he's the president"; so he exerts toe-the-line control over his party's legislative members, and never has to clash with them, because when he says jump they're already on their way down.
"Power", in the context of the article, seems to be a positive thing. I'd calling it secrecy, stonewalling, pigheaded stubborness, and jingoism. Semantics.
I didn't realize Bush was that great until you built him up and put it in perspective. I knew he was the greatest President the USA has ever had, but wow, you make him sound that much better. Its about time we had someone that would bypass the Geneva convention. Why should we be the only country in the world that even knows what it is, much less go by it?nakedemperor said:Creating a "stronger" executive branch, in this article, seems to be directly correlated to what is known as "stonewalling".
So Bush is willing to run the most secretive administration since Nixon; so he's willing to give the littlest information and offer the fewest press conferences of any president since the color t.v.; so he's willing to bypass the Geneva convention "just because he's the president"; so he exerts toe-the-line control over his party's legislative members, and never has to clash with them, because when he says jump they're already on their way down.
"Power", in the context of the article, seems to be a positive thing. I'd calling it secrecy, stonewalling, pigheaded stubborness, and jingoism. Semantics.
manu1959 said:my president could kick your presidents ass
hylandrdet said:Without dispute Clinton.
This week Clinton was cheered by thousands as he spoke to the national black caucus. He was greeted by thousands as he visited the tsunami victims. Most polls, during the last election suggested that If they had a choice between him, GW or John Kerry, the people would had chosen Clinton.
Face it, he's hot!!! He can do no wrong and it burns you conservatives up!!!
If Bill Clinton had decalre war on Iraq, as President of the United States, no country would had objected because Bill had Global Political Capital, something GW never had.
Everyone in California wants Swartzy to be eligible for the presidency. While we're at it, why not allow Clinton to run again for president, as an independent?
Stephanie said:There isn't one single thing to be jeolous of an adulterer, shady business deals, let's talk about liers(right smack to the faces of his people, I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMEN), what do you consider sex, is, is what you mean is, is or what I mean what is, is?? But of course it's no surprise you all find this man to be a perfect individual......
hylandrdet said:Without dispute Clinton.
This week Clinton was cheered by thousands as he spoke to the national black caucus. He was greeted by thousands as he visited the tsunami victims. Most polls, during the last election suggested that If they had a choice between him, GW or John Kerry, the people would had chosen Clinton.
Face it, he's hot!!! He can do no wrong and it burns you conservatives up!!!
If Bill Clinton had decalre war on Iraq, as President of the United States, no country would had objected because Bill had Global Political Capital, something GW never had.
Everyone in California wants Swartzy to be eligible for the presidency. While we're at it, why not allow Clinton to run again for president, as an independent?
nakedemperor said:Creating a "stronger" executive branch, in this article, seems to be directly correlated to what is known as "stonewalling".
So Bush is willing to run the most secretive administration since Nixon; so he's willing to give the littlest information and offer the fewest press conferences of any president since the color t.v.; so he's willing to bypass the Geneva convention "just because he's the president"; so he exerts toe-the-line control over his party's legislative members, and never has to clash with them, because when he says jump they're already on their way down.
"Power", in the context of the article, seems to be a positive thing. I'd calling it secrecy, stonewalling, pigheaded stubborness, and jingoism. Semantics.
Stephanie said:There isn't one single thing to be jeolous of an adulterer, shady business deals, let's talk about liers(right smack to the faces of his people, I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMEN), what do you consider sex, is, is what you mean is, is or what I mean what is, is?? But of course it's no surprise you all find this man to be a perfect individual......
Bullypulpit said:Dubbyuh's administration leaves me pining for the good old days of the Nixon Administration. Nixon was a cheap piker compared to the rat-bastards now occupying the White House. The only thing they tried to cover up was a bit of political skull-duggery. Dubbyuh and his merry band are trying to cover up a war based on false pretenses.
Bullypulpit said:Clinton lied about a blow-job in the Oval Office. Dubbyuh lied to take this nation into a war.
kurtsprincess said:Well..........if they are both liars..........it's pretty clear what the nation wants to believe, and who they want to be their leader.
Bullypulpit said:Judging from recent poll numbers, it ain't Dubbyuh.
Stephanie said:There isn't one single thing to be jeolous of an adulterer, shady business deals, let's talk about liers(right smack to the faces of his people, I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMEN), what do you consider sex, is, is what you mean is, is or what I mean what is, is?? But of course it's no surprise you all find this man to be a perfect individual......
kurtsprincess said:Polls don't impress me much.....the silent majority is what impresses me and they have a tendency to speak up when it's important.
hylandrdet said:. "slick willy" would had the UN begging to go to war against Iraq; our troops would had began its withdrawl by now.
