This morning I read the lead editorial page editorial in the Washington Post (September 26, 2005) and had to shake my head again in disbelief.
How is it possible to write an editorial commenting on Supreme Court nominations without mentioning the Bush Administration's withholding information from the Senate about Roberts' performance while working for the Federal government?
This morning I read the lead editorial page editorial in the Washington Post (September 26, 2005) and had to shake my head again in disbelief.
How is it possible to write an editorial commenting on Supreme Court nominations without mentioning the Bush Administration's withholding information from the Senate about Roberts' performance while working for the Federal government?
I had the same response to the Post's editorial in support of the Roberts nomination last week. I was not surprised they supported Roberts, but to write an editorial WITHOUT mentioning the Bush Administration's refusal to release relevant information, either positively or negatively?
It's sad. The Post was once a power for independent journalism. Now they don't even mention in passing when an Administration refuses serious senatorial requests for work relate information produced by a nominee for a lifelong appointment.
I figure there are a couple of reasons why the Post does not even comment about the stonewalling; I wonder which, if any, of these is true:
- They believe the Bush Administration was justified in refusing Senate access to Roberts' records and/or think Senate Democrats were just fishing but just don't want to come right out and admit it.
- They were secretly briefed by the Bush Administration on the contents of the Roberts record and for some reason have decided not to go public with what they learned.
- The Post does not believe it would have been possible for the White House to broker a deal with the Senate whereby a bipartisan subcommittee would have reviewed the Roberts record secretly in order to determine relevance to the Roberts hearing.
- The Post does not want to appear to be taking the side of Democrats in the Senate who are "clearly in the minority" in their opposition to Roberts. (This is a variant of the "they're just playing politics" argument.)
I kept thinking the Washington Post would at least say something about the need for the Administration "to be more forthcoming in the future" in this morning's editorial; no such luck.
I certainly don't expect to agree with everything the Washington Post editorial page says. But for an editorial page to consistently ignore such an important issue causes me to seriously question their honesty and intelligence.