Roberts' ruling in Bush's favor debated (Quid pro quo)

[deminks]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/22/MNG0DERKBJ1.DTL&feed=rss.news

There's no dispute that chief justice nominee John Roberts met with high-level White House officials while his appellate court was considering a case of enormous importance to the Bush administration, on the president's power to try battlefield captives and foreign terror suspects before military commissions.

There is considerable dispute, among legal ethics experts as well as supporters and opponents of Roberts, about whether his contacts amounted to a conflict of interest that should have disqualified him from the case.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee votes today on President Bush's nomination of the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Roberts' court in Washington, D.C., is weighing a motion by lawyers for a Guantanamo Bay prisoner to set aside its July 15 ruling because of Roberts' participation.

That appeals court ruling freed Bush from the restrictions of the Geneva Conventions, which guarantee defendants' rights at trials and bar abusive interrogation of military detainees. Lawyers for the prisoner in the case have appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

[punpirate]

1. Well, hell, it was a conflict of interest...

... and the people who deny it are simply those seeking a continuingly conservative court.

A half-assed lawyer at a lower level would have had his bar standing stripped for the equivalent. But, because Roberts is being considered for high court position, he's entitled to slack not provided to others?

Yeah, right.

Democrats could have pounced on this guy for his indifferent attitude toward judicial ethics, and for the most part, didn't. Looking the other way when there's been a judicial lapse of ethics isn't good practice nor good politics.

Democrats think they have to cut this guy some slack because the next nominee down the pike may be worse ignores the fact that they could, in fact, challenge all future Supreme Court nominees from Bush for cause. Lesser cause in one case doesn't protect them in an attempt to deny another candidate later.

Leahy, et al, still thinks bipartisan consideration is in play. How wrong he and the others supporting his views are remains to be seen--but, of one thing we can all be sure--Roberts gets a pass on those things he should not.

[0007]

9. I myself certainly don't understand Leahy and am extremely

disappointed in him.

[dusty64]

2. roberts is a regime

butt boy and nothing more. I really can't get my mind around Leahy's effusive praise for this guy. It has become apparent over the years that this crime ring can get away with ANYTHING and any nominee, including Satan himself, will be shoved through. Sadly, there really is NO opposition to the extreme wrongwing in this country.

[lakeguy]

3. why can't they find normal righty judges instead of

these freakshows? are there any left?

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Seems Roberts is supposedly the best

of a bad bunch.

I think they're afraid if they reject Roberts, Bush will go with someone even worse.

[spotbird]

5. So what if he does?

We should fight for our children as many times as it takes.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. That would require an opposition party

seems we no longer have one of those in DC.

[Frances]

7. This post makes me really angry

Why are you not putting the blame where it belongs?

On Roberts who is guilty.

On Bush who appointed him.

On Republicans who vote straight down the line for Bush's appointees.

I do NOT want my Dem senators, Boxer and Feinstein, who both plan to vote NO on Roberts, blamed.

As long as DUers keep whining about Dems and don't focus on the Repubs we will keep getting nominees like Roberts.

[crikkett]

8. hear, hear!!

That's what I think. "Pick your battles" sounds like laziness to me.

[VegasWolf]

10. Yes, or flat out COWARDICE!!! nt