Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | Panel Says Filibuster is not the Problem »

March 12, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20120a92cd31e970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Briefs Missing From Holder Questionnaire:

Comments

Wilson

It wasn't his job to gather the briefs?? HA!
It certainly was his job to account for every one of them regardless of who was the
aid designated to collect the briefs. This is the data used to determine the very qualifications for an attorney general position. The lack of or failure to file the briefs is very possibily deliberate and
an investigation is warranted and required.

Cindy Apfel

This really hurts the Attorney General in two ways: his failure to disclose the briefs and the contents of the briefs themselves. His theory in the Padilla brief of "acceptable risk" in the ability of the government to obtain information from terrorists is very troubling.

Rick

This administration has far too many coincidences to be coincidental - if you know what I mean...

Prudence

Knowingly withholding pertinent information isn't ethics even to the common man! Lawyers get away with anything by twisting a lot of words; but -- the reality is that everyone knows this is not transparent and bodes ill for justice at the highest level!

E. Lawrence Barcella, Jr.

Any Judiciary staffer or first year lawyer can run a Lexis or Westlaw check and find the information. It's a reflection on the inadequacy of everyone's due diligence, but for the Republican Senators to make a big deal about what is clearly inadvertant should be more embarrassing to them than to Holder.

Pam

Even if you don't think the Supreme Court practice question calls for the brief (and I believe that it does), Holder responds to the question "I have participated as an amicus party in three amicus briefs" and then lists three briefs where he participated as amici curiae. Why would he provide those three briefs and not the others?

Amicus Ingram

They are only "missing" if the questionnaire calls for briefs where one serves as an amicus curiae and not as counsel to an amicus, which does not appear to be the case since the question begins, "Describe your Supreme Court practice," and serving as a friend of the court is not "practice" as an attorney. Nonlawyers do it all the time and aren't engaging in unauthorized practice.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements