PDA

View Full Version : One for the CBR Lawyers on Roberts


Hoss
08-26-2005, 10:56 AM
Personally, I think Roberts seems like a smart lawyer and a capable man who is just fine for the Supreme Court. And while I don't think this disqualifies him from serving, what the do the CBR legalists thing about this...

Judge Heard Terrorism Case As He Interviewed for Seat

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 17, 2005; A04

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was interviewing for a possible Supreme Court nomination with top Bush administration officials at the same time he was presiding over a terrorism case of significant importance to President Bush.

Roberts recently released details of the months-long interviewing process showing that he met with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other administration officials about the Supreme Court job while sitting on the three-judge panel that eventually allowed Bush to resume the use of military officers to conduct trials of terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The "military commissions" are central to Bush's anti-terrorism strategy.

Roberts met with Gonzales on April 1, six days before hearing oral arguments in the case, which resulted in a unanimous decision in favor of the administration. Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler, a top Gonzales deputy, argued the case on behalf of the administration.

One month later, with the case in progress, Roberts was summoned to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, among others. Bush conducted the final face-to-face interview on July 15 -- the same day Roberts and two other judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued the ruling in the case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld .


more in the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601561_pf.html

SUPERECWFAN1
08-26-2005, 12:57 PM
I think what may sink John Roberts is the fact that Bush side stepped Congress and angered many in the Senate with his work on Bolten. They may just to teach Bush a lesson , may derail his vote.


I'm a bit worried on why the Adminstration refused to turnover documents during his work under the other Bush Administration. Have they released those records yet ?

Slam_Bradley
08-26-2005, 02:17 PM
I don't see where this should have any effect or bearing whatsoever. The man is a sitting judge. You can't expect him to stop hearing cases because he's interviewing for the Supreme Court.

Boldido
08-26-2005, 04:33 PM
I agree with Slam. Unless we want to exclude all sitting judges from the nomination process, we are going to run into this kind of situation. I also think the article is pretty sloppy. We know that a three judge panel sided with Bush. Shouldn't the author have indicated whether this was a 2-1 decision or a 3-0 decision? (By the way, it was a unanimous decision, but adding that information doesn't make it look as sinister as the Post would like it to look. Neither does the fact that of the two judges who issued written opinions, neither of them was Roberts.)

I think this source put it best.

Monroe Freedman, a specialist in legal ethics at Hofstra University School of Law, said the White House is probably right that it would create an unwise burden if judges were required to recuse themselves in cases like this, especially when it comes to the D.C. Circuit, whose docket is full of matters involving the federal government heard by judges who would be eager to gain a Supreme Court appointment. "I don't think you can fault Roberts," he said, because he was selected to hear the Hamdan case and then approached about the possible Supreme Court opening.

The people at the post better get used to saying Justice Roberts, because if this is the best these guys can come up with, his nomination is going to sail through.

Boldido
08-26-2005, 04:45 PM
Rassin Frassin Double Post

BlairH
08-26-2005, 05:06 PM
Hmmm, a rather interesting story...

http://photos.ar15.com/Galleries/Avatars/27011.gif
Armed Law Student

Wesley Dodds
08-26-2005, 05:39 PM
The moral of that cartoon is to kill your slow, lumbering opponent as he reaches for his gun with the alacrity of a three-toed sloth.