White House Refuses Release for Roberts Papers During Bush I Tenure

The White House has agreed to release many of John Roberts’ papers, but they refuse to release and internal memos that were generated during Roberts’ four year tenure as deputy solicitor general for the Bush I administration.

McClellan said the Justice Department will withhold internal memos generated from 1989 to 1993 during Roberts’ work as deputy solicitor general during the presidency of the current Bush’s father, George Bush.

It was during this period that Roberts wrote a legal brief on the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized a woman’s right to abortion. He said in the brief that “we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to White House Refuses Release for Roberts Papers During Bush I Tenure

  1. Ron Chusid says:

    At least Bush isn’t a flip flopper here. We know where he stands. Bush has been consistent in supporting increased secrecy and decreased transparency.

    Bush made it harder to review many of the documents of his father’s administration early in his own term. I’ve always wondered what it is they are hiding.

  2. Ron

    I hope JK and others continue to push for these documents.

  3. kj says:

    Ron, that’s exactly right, BushII extended the time period that his father’s (and Reagan also, I think?) documents could be kept under wraps. It was one of his first acts while in office, if I remember correctly.

    I love the fact that the few times Roberts is on record about a so-called “litmus issue” is the very paper that BushII will kept from public review. I mean, of course. Did I expect anything different? Did I actually expect a government “by the people for the people”?

  4. KJ

    A government by the people? What is that?