Roberts and Robert Bork: Opposing Roberts is not "Borking."

Conservatives love to rail about the "Borking" of Robert Bork. But they lie by omission when they allege we opposed him just because he's a conservative. We opposed him because he was a miserable excuse for a judge (you, know, lacking "judicial temperament"), who, among other things executed the "Saturday Night massacre"--the firing of Archibald Cox, Watergate independent prosecutor.

Remember, Richard Nixon was caught red-handed participating in a cover up of the Watergate break in. But there was so much more to the story. Nixon was heard on tape discussing how to destroy his enemies, using the power of the CIA and FBI to do so. He also discussed (on tape) violently eliminating the Brookings Institution. Cox was on the trail of all this, so to cover up, further Bork fired him. So Bork should have been "Borked."

Roberts wasn't involved in anything like the abuse of power (firing Cox). But as People for the American Way (PFAW) recently summarized, there's a whole lot more to Roberts than the so-called MSM is telling us. 50,000 of Roberts' papers were covered up. Some have just been released. But a considerable amount of material is still missing. The Senate has every right to examine these papers. The very same people who argued against 'executive privilege' before the Supremes (and won against Clinton) now claim the opposite. This is a Constitutionally prescribed Senate duty and right, unlike the Starr and Judicial Watch snooping fishing expeditions. So far, we don't know the extent of Roberts' alleged partisan ventures into the Starr investigations or Floridagate. These are fair game. But more to the point, the public has a right to know.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081005Z.shtml

Write to your Senators at www.congress.org