BREAKING: “Independent” Ethicist Defending Roberts Actually A Pentagon Consultant
BREAKING: “Independent” Ethicist Defending Roberts Actually A Pentagon Consultant
In April, Judge John Roberts “heard arguments about the Bush administration’s policy [on military commissions in Guantanamo] as he was discussing a Supreme Court appointment in private conversations with the White House.” On July 15, “when Judge Roberts met with President Bush for the job-clinching interview, he joined a ruling in favor of the defendants, who included Mr. Bush.”
In an article that has recieved considerable attention by the media, Stephen Gillers, David J. Luban, and Steven Lubet – three respected legal ethicists – argue that Roberts conduct was unethical. They noted “[f]ederal law deems public trust in the courts so critical that it requires judges to step aside if their ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ even if the judge is completely impartial as a matter of fact.”
To rebut their claims the papers are quick to turn to another legal scholar, Professor Ronald Rotunda who argues that Roberts did nothing wrong. Here’s what they don’t tell you: until very recently Ronald Rotunda was employed as a military advisor to the Department of Defense on military commissions – the exact subject of the case in controversy.
You can find the information on his public website.
But when the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsday and Fox News reported on Rotunda’s views, they didn’t bother to mention this obvious conflict. (The Wall Street Journal, to their credit, gave it a brief mention this morning.)
Also, when Ronald Rotunda wrote a letter describing his views on Roberts’s conduct to Senator Arlen Specter, he didn’t disclose his connection to the Department of Defense.
It is completely irresponsible for the media to refer to Rotunda as a neutral “legal scholar” in this circumstance. He is as conflicted as Roberts and is in no position to be passing judgment.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’ve been a fan of Ronald Rotunda for sometime and think he is a standup guy. Your post hasn’t convinced me otherwise. It’s possible to wear two hats.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:24 pmMaybe recusal would have been best. But, it still doesn’t disqualify him. But, the left is not the only one who gains from this. The right can now claim that Gonzales’ conflict of interest would be too great. So, if as expected, Darth Bader steps down over the next year, Bush will likely have appointed three conservative judges.
Judd – my initial reaction was to write this off as just another liberal temper tantrum. But, it looks like I gain from it too. Thanks.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:28 pmJudd
I agree that Roberts is way too conservative, but how to oppose him without coming off as obstructionists? Should we (can we) stall all nominations on the off chance we can take back the Senate in 06? What are the ballot box ramifications of serious opposition? Do we oppose purely on principle or do we cut or losses?
August 26th, 2005 at 3:37 pmIt reminds me of TIME, Inc holding back the Rove/Plamegate story until after the election to benefit Bushco.
These sorts of things don’t happen accidentally.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:42 pmThe Holloway story is out of control. I couldn’t even watch Hannity for weeks because of it. It’s plain nonsense if you ask me.
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma
August 26th, 2005 at 3:46 pmcome on NED, whos your daddy????
#3 – this is a huge test for Democrats. The people that fund you, the base and the far left cannot have the Courts get into conservative hands. However, you have several Democratic senators up for re-election in states like LA, WV, SD, ND and to a lesser extent Michigan that cannot afford a bloody confirmation fight rooted solely on ideology. Smearing Roberts like Thomas in 1991 will backfire too.
My advice to Democrats is let this happen. The best chance they have at getting back in power would be a conservative court that overturns Roe. And the outcome of that is even debatable.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:46 pmwent to your blog NED, and i noticed your favorite book is by Ann Coulter. i thought you were a sheep for liking me, but Ann too? wow, you are a very good soldier NED. no wonder your sheep-like talking points are always so fresh. i noticed you like pop music too. sweet. .
August 26th, 2005 at 3:47 pm#7 – dude, come on. Be a little more original, willya?
August 26th, 2005 at 3:48 pmyou guys want a big laugh? go to NEDs blog spot.its hilarious. http://northeastdilemma.blogspot.com/ (he likes pop music like me)
August 26th, 2005 at 3:48 pmRonald Rotunda? Is that what happens to Ronald McDonald when they pay him with Big Macs?
August 26th, 2005 at 3:49 pmyour words, not mine. your blog, not mine. im just mad that you read Ann Coulters books and not mine.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:49 pmWill Clown for food!
August 26th, 2005 at 3:49 pmquick NED, go cry to the mods like a pussy. it worked last time for ya.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:50 pmDilEnema, you are obtuse and obsolete. Run along home now. Bye-bye.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:51 pmDartanyon
Yes, it is a scary time for the fourth estate. Thank god for the blogs and their information.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:51 pmcome on NED, i know you got some more talking points, and other peoples opinions for us.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:56 pm#1,
Wouldn’t that be considered a conflict of interest rather than simply wearing “two hats”?
August 26th, 2005 at 3:56 pmNED shut up and don’t ever agree with me again!
August 26th, 2005 at 3:56 pm#18 – you would be wise to take my advice considering conservatives have a clue on how to win.
For a bunch of liberals, you people are certainly closed minded.
August 26th, 2005 at 3:58 pmNED,i still cant believe you actually admit to watching my show and reading Ann Coulter, and you still expect to be taken seriously.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:00 pmNotice that Neddy is only capable of viewing this situation in partisan terms. All that matters is whether his party gains or loses. Whether anything unethical is going on isn’t a consideration. Typical neo-clown.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:00 pmHow so Dil?
August 26th, 2005 at 4:00 pmDING DING DING DING DING. you got it Gary, we conservatives ALWAYS put our party before the country.ALWAYS.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:01 pmSo, according to a few of you, conflicts of interests are okay, (you’d have to have two heads, though, as its the only way that one can logically wear two hats simultaneously), and a biased media is fine as long as long as it is biased in your favor?
Such arguments in itself are proof that intelligent design is false because God would not make people so stupid, only inbreeding does.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:01 pmNed, Ann Coulter says you still are not a man, she even went out of her way to confirm it http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/25.html
I’m sorry, I guess it will never work out for you kids.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:03 pmOptimist,
I agree. if ID were correct, Dil would have been born with his head inside his ass already.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:03 pmNed, Ann Coulter says you still are not a man, she even went out of her way to confirm it http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/25.html
No problem. Neddy may not be a man, but Coulter is.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:04 pmits ok NED, you can still watch my show, i dont think your a woman like Ann Coulter does.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:05 pmNED made sure to watch my show yesterday though, his favorite author(he actually admitted this)Ann Coulter was on smearing Cindy Sheehan like shes a policy maker or something. it was funny.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:07 pmAnn really knows how to get under your skin.
Also, I should add, while I am a partisan, I am not blind. Roberts “conflict of interest” is not great enough to disqualify him. But, Gonzales’ is and that’s wonderful. We will use this little uproar to make sure Bush stays true to his right-wing base, not the MSM and Democrats.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:08 pmNED,
I’m curious, how “big” does a conflict of interest need to be before it is considered, at least in your mind, a Conflict of Interest.
And this is the last I will respond to anything you have to say because, quite frankly, I am truly convinced that you do not have the capacity for cognitive reasoning.
May Intelligent Design have mercy upon your soul.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:15 pmI’m curious, how “big†does a conflict of interest need to be before it is considered, at least in your mind, a Conflict of Interest.
If it gets in the way of somebody he likes, it’s not big enough.
If it gets in the way of somebody he doesn’t like, it is big enough.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:20 pmRotunda’s conflict of interest DilEnema. That’s the point being made as well.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:20 pmIts like having an Oil industry rep working on the EPA. Get it now?
August 26th, 2005 at 4:23 pmThis wouldn’t be an issue if Roberts’ wasn’t the SWING VOTE ruling, that the Geneva Conventions does not grant basic human rights to detainees. BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:23 pmRemeber hundreds of the detainees including those who were tortured were INNOCENT and were let go.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:26 pmOptimist – your disdain for those who don’t think like you is noted. Quick unrelated question for you – Since you people love polls, most polls show that over 60% of Americans want intelligent design taught. Not that I advocate it, but I think your tone says alot and explains why you can’t win in red America. Quite frankly, you sound like a bigot.
John Roberts ruling in favor of the Administration is not a conflict of interest. The DC Circuit is the second highest court in the country – he’s bound to rule on cases involving the WH. You have to take the man at his word. How do think he would have ruled if he wasn’t being considered for the Court? He still would have sided with the Administration.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:27 pmbushies,
We aren’t saying Ronald Rotunda’s opinion is worthless. We are saying that the work he does for a living, commenting for the dept of defense, ought to be mentioned so that we can gauge any conflict of interest when we judge the worth of what he says.
I mean, you are all such champions of personal responsibility here. We want to be able to access the baggage that a person brings to the table with him. Of course phaux news sheep don’t need to make up their own minds. They just repeat what the right tells them.
ned – douche bag. Need I say more?
August 26th, 2005 at 4:29 pmRotunda is entitled to his opinion too.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:29 pm#38 – just like you want to access Cindy’s baggage too? UM – sure.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:30 pmNot even comparible Dil.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:36 pmSkid – of course not. That would require liberals not being hypocrites.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:40 pmFor the love of pete! You connie losers don’t get the difference between a private citizen and a policy advocate! There is legit disclosure and then the fecal matter you smear upon our country.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:50 pmGood knee-jerk comeback Dil. Try using more than the reptile portion of your brain.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:05 pmWhat else is new under this misbegotten government.
Does anyone ever stop to think about how George is getting handouts from us. Rethink his pigranch we the tax payers has turned it into a multimillion dollar war palace.who put in bike trail you and I. Who put in the helo pad you and I. Who put in the sniper lookout you and I . who put in housing for cooks,ss,guest etc? you and I . Judd can you all get a breakdown on the tax dollars that George has sipponed off to build his War Palace.The food ,drink courstey of Americans.
palace[1]
August 26th, 2005 at 5:08 pm(noun) 1 a : the official residence of a chief of state (as a monarch or a president); b chiefly British : the official residence of an archbishop or bishop; 2 a : a large stately house; b : a large public building; c : a highly decorated place for public amusement or refreshment
I do not understand what the Democrats problem is with John Roberts. A mainstream guy like Roberts will be able to bring more balance to the supreme court.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:15 pmNow from what I remember part of the reason the Democrats lost last time was partly because they were becoming too extremist or at least being controlled by an extremist faction within their own party. It is not in the countries best interest or in their best interest to oppose this guy unless the Democrats want to be seen as extremists who wish to maintain an imbalance on the high court.
If Cindy Sheehan is a private citizen, I’m Brad Pitt.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:23 pmYou sir are NO Brad Pitt, though Cindy IS a private citizen, as much as you or I.
And to Johanan Raatz, what extremist faction are you talking about? The “extremely pissed off that BushCo lied to us and is trying to screw the middle/lower class in favor of the wealthy” faction? Say it ain’t so?
August 26th, 2005 at 5:37 pmNED, tell us who is clearly the most informed person on this blog?
Now folks, who knows more about ethics than the Pentagon? Only their consultants, that’s who.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:46 pmStuff You Should Read
Next up: an “indepedent” reviewer declares Prof. Rotunda’s behavior to be “ethical,” too.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:47 pmNow from what I remember part of the reason the Democrats lost last time was partly because they were becoming too extremist or at least being controlled by an extremist faction within their own party.
No, the reason we lost last time around was invading Iraq was supposed to end terrorism on the face of the earth, and Democrats were too stupid to understand that. We’re weak. We don’t have the guts to invade a country for bogus reasons, destabilize the mideast, double the price of oil, increase terrorism ten fold, and slander the patriotism of anyone who opposes us, all in the name of freedom.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:48 pmJohanan – go to redstate. You are in the wrong site if you expect us to agree with your bushshit.
Roberts isn’t mainstream. “Democrats” want to know how he’d rule on important issues, then they will vote. No one has voted yet although most of us have made judgements via the impressions gained from his current work.
Let’s see, during R Reagan’s term he was consistently to the right of Ronnie, you call that mainstream?
Let’s see how he answers the questions Senators throw at him reguarding.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:49 pmJohanan,
I would not pretend to speak for Democrats, especially since I do not even claim to be one myself. I can only speak for myself in regard to the issues that I have with Mr. Roberts nomination.
First, it is important to point out what we are talking about here, and that is the Supreme Court. The USSC is the third arm of our government and the final say on the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and our laws. A position on the Supreme Court, therefore, is one of critical importance to the governed. Considering that it is a lifetime appointment, it is also expected that an appointee’s impartiality and judgment be beyond reproach.
With that stated, the Roberts nomination raised a major red flag the moment the Bush Administration went into high-gear to restrict the amount of information that the senate, and the people for that matter, can have access to regarding Mr. Roberts past. I mean, such a ploy is an insult to the intelligence of the people and incredibly disrespectful. And, for the the administration to tell us “trust us, he’s good people” doesn’t cut it, nor should it. Would you hire a Nanny without first checking their criminal background? And if the Nanny placement agency said that they wouldn’t release the perspective nanny’s information but that they would promise that the nanny is a good person, would that be enough for you to put your child in that person’s hands?
There are those that say that the conflict of interest issue is too minor to be considered. I say that because of the importance of this appointment, no issue is “too minor”. But when you combine that with the witholding of information, you’re damn right I’m going to question what’s going on. And that, my friend, is what democracy is all about.
And a note to Brad Pitt (aka NED), you do not have the street cred to question Ms. Sheehan. Join the marines and get your ass over to Iraq and then, if/when you come back, you may voice your opinion on the same stage. Otherwise, shut your coward-ass mouth.
August 26th, 2005 at 5:59 pmWhy the reluctance to include in his URL?
Afraid of criticism???
August 26th, 2005 at 6:19 pmOptimist – oh, I forgot, I am only entitiled to an opinion on the war if A. I am an anti-war freak or B. I serve in the military (bashing Bush would give me more rights too). You’re a fascist.
With the president 40% approval, I guarantee the Democrats will try to take down Roberts. Which is fine. If anything could bounce Bush back would be a fight over cultural values. One which people like Optimist would help the right win.
August 26th, 2005 at 6:52 pmGang,
Just heard from a friend in Washington. Apparently Bruce Reed (DLC guy) is penning an op-ed to be published in Sunday’s Wash Post which will blast Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movement. Brace yourselves!
August 26th, 2005 at 7:00 pmEveryone is entitled to an opinion. Just as everyone is responsible for their own actions. And, if you make a mistake, you own up to it. My issue with NED is that he/she blindly supports the Iraq war and continues to change his/her reasoning as the administration does. Rather than admit to the error and do the right thing, NED would rather keep up his/her false pride and “stay the course” while people continue to die. These are the facts, and they are indisputable. You can try to dispute it, of course, as that is your right. But if you are true to your convictions and believe that the war in Iraq is noble and just, then you must join the service and go fight. Otherwise your words are just hot air and you have no honor. This is the reality, not my judgment.
Now, I have served in the military. And, right now, I strongly oppose the current administration’s actions and I will speak out about it and support any efforts against it. I do not smear or slander people, I speak the truth. And if the truth hurts, so be it.
Unfortunately, there are those like NED who think that to not support war is a weakness. A simple stroll through history will show that the strongest figures of history were those who either avoided wars or ended them. The weak are usually the ones who start them. Also, throwing out terms like “liberals” and thinking that such is an insult only shows ignorance, not intelligence.
Lastly, to think that Bush has the upper hand on “cultural values” means that you have to ignore the truth that he, and his administration, are deceivers and, by virtue of the results of their deceits, murderers. After considering all that, NED should look up the definition of fascism in the dictionary (it will be under the “f”’s, by the way) and what he/she will discover is that definition matches his/her position.
If you feel that I am wrong, please correct me. I do have an open mind and welcome intelligent conversation.
August 26th, 2005 at 7:22 pmThe Holloway story is out of control. I couldn’t even watch Hannity for weeks because of it. It’s plain nonsense if you ask me.
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma
August 26th, 2005 at 7:39 pmcome on NED, whos your daddy?????
NED actually admitted to watching my show, and reading the hate speech of Ann Coulter. he is a fellow sheep-like conservative like myself.
August 26th, 2005 at 8:56 pmNED, don’t you think those “cultural values” Bush continually crows about are wearing a little thin? I mean, Jeeeze, only a few simpleton’s in that 40% bracket you are talking about are still buying into that tired old crap.
August 26th, 2005 at 9:02 pmIt is amazing what you can find out when you look beyond the ‘unbiased’ (and seriously braindead!)media… I am not at all surprised at this article. Nor am I surprised that, even on little ol’ obscure websites, the zealots of the right are working so hard to make sure that no pesky ‘facts’ get past without adding their ’spin’ to them. Why don’t you boys go and play in your own deluded little circles, and quit patronizing the American public? We aren’t nearly as stupid as you think and we are growing VERY tired of being fed your lies.
August 26th, 2005 at 11:57 pmThere is no such thing as “cultural values.” We, the people of this country (The U.S.) are not brothers and sisters, not friends our even acquaintances.
A country of free people would be a country full of people with their own individual values, and those values would be treated with respect and dignity by everyone. That doesn’t mean that we can’t disagree, it means that we have to respect each others rights to be who they are, no matter whom that is.
As soon as people begin to think that we all must have the same values as everyone else, and then use the words like “patriotism†to define them, then it is those very people who box in freedom.
Being a patriotic American has nothing to do with saluting the flag, or singing the national anthem. It has nothing to do with supporting our troops, or believing in our elected officials.
A patriotic American is one that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, AND that that means that every single individual has the right to define what makes them happy, and how they want to pursue it. If that means that they want to own a huge organization that dominates the global market, then fine. If that means that they want to climb trees and keep people from cutting them down, because they believe in preserving natural resources, great. If that means that they are gay and want to marry someone of the same sex, so be it. They have the right to do what they wish, be who they are, and believe what they believe, without interference, within the limits of the laws that are written around these very same principles.
One, who believes in this, is a patriotic American. Communists have a place in America; Jews have a place in America; Black Panthers have a place in America; people who could care less about any issue have a place in America; Nazi’s have a place in America. These are all people with ideals, and beliefs, and as long as they stay within the law, which means that they don’t impede on my rights or yours to be who we wish, think what we want, then they are patriotic Americans.
August 27th, 2005 at 12:20 amrich said: “I’ve been a fan of Ronald Rotunda for sometime and think he is a standup guy. Your post hasn’t convinced me otherwise. It’s possible to wear two hats.”
the problem here is that although it is certainly possible to wear two hats, it is also certainly a conflict of interest. no matter how honorable the head may be. in Rotunda’s case, he not only was wearing two hats, but he failed to disclose that he was wearing one of them. a truly “standup guy” would have been upfront about it. that omission on his part is more than enough to discredit his views in the area of ethics, and especially on the subject of Roberts.
August 27th, 2005 at 5:28 amThis Bush cabal is so incestuous…it’s a house of smoke and mirrors. Nothing’s real, it’s all staged. The case Roberts had before him was the most important legal case in the United States right now. In effect, his decision allows Bush to jail a civilian American citizen in a military brig for years without charges. According to the Constitution, the President needs to declare martial law to get away with that kind of crap. Padilla was held incommunicado for two years. He still hasn’t been charged with anything after more than three years. Is this America?? If Roberts is confirmed, expect more of the same.
August 27th, 2005 at 10:25 amGang,
Just heard from a friend in Washington. Apparently Bruce Reed (DLC guy) is penning an op-ed to be published in Sunday’s Wash Post which will blast Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movement. Brace yourselves!
Spare us! The DLC? What a Joke! Worse than the GOP and RNC. No one listens to them, anyway. BTW, is your last name Breckinridge?
http://members.tripod.com/~myrasite/contents.html
August 27th, 2005 at 10:41 amI do not understand what the Democrats problem is with John Roberts. A mainstream guy like Roberts will be able to bring more balance to the supreme court.
Now from what I remember part of the reason the Democrats lost last time was partly because they were becoming too extremist or at least being controlled by an extremist faction within their own party. It is not in the countries best interest or in their best interest to oppose this guy unless the Democrats want to be seen as extremists who wish to maintain an imbalance on the high court.
Comment by Johanan Raatz — August 26, 2005 @ 5:15 pm
This needs to be de-propagandized. Even the most radical leftists today have more in common with the American political landscape of the late 40’s and early 50s than any of these extremist radicals on the right. People like Roberts and the FedSoc were once investigated by the FBI, like the JBS, and formed terrorist groups like the Posse Comitatus and the Freemen. The left has drifted so far to the right, along with politics in general, to call it radical or extremist is the hieght of absurdity.
Rewrite:
I understand what the Democrats problem is with John Roberts. An extremist like Roberts will be able to undo 200 years of precedent, eliminate the independent judiciary, making the supreme court an appendage of the one party state, by overturning Marbury v. Madison, the true goal of the extremist activists at the FedSoc.
This part is so convoluted it needs no real rewrite. It’s just absurd.
Now from what I remember part of the reason the Democrats lost in 2000 was the liberal, activist court (LMAO!) and partly because they were becoming too extremist or at least being controlled by an extremist faction within their own party. It is not in the countries best interest or in their best interest to oppose this guy unless the Democrats want to be seen as extremists who wish to maintain an imbalance on the high court.
Comment by Johanan Raatz — August 26, 2005 @ 5:15 pm
Whatever the right suggests you do, do the exact opposite.
August 27th, 2005 at 11:03 amhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/politics/25memo.html
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/08/desire-v-duty-on-supreme-court.html
August 27th, 2005 at 11:04 am[...] Yesterday we revealed that Rotunda — who is presenting himself as a neutral legal ethicist — was, until very recently, a paid military advisor to the Department of Defense on military commissions. [...]
August 27th, 2005 at 11:21 amBasing discussions on which political side you support abstracts you away from any direct responsibility for the decision. Perhaps this is a coping mechanism? All of your very intelligent responses would be a lot more valid if you could drop your allegiance to a party and look at the impact of policy decisions as the rest of the world sees them – as an action and reaction rather than as a side-game between two factions on the same team.
Open your eyes. This isn’t about you – it’s about the whole world. You have a global responsibility to impeach Bush. His lies have resulted in thousands dying, yet you impeached Clinton for a cum-stained dress? Is anyone awake over there?
August 27th, 2005 at 6:58 pmHello down under,
Many of the progressive folks here fault the Dems for their problems, as well as the republicans. We wanted to get Bush out in ‘04, but we were offered a Republican-lite candidate. Trying to get an Independant voted in is next to impossible. SO, we have a real problem with the Dems voting republican on a lot of things. We are in a real bind over here. People that are speaking out against Bush are comingout of the woodwork, which I say “It’s about time!”
We can keep working at getting him out of office. I don’t believe that impeachment is enough. Bush is guilty of war crimes. He needs to go to jail with the rest of his cronies. But alas, they can all pardon each other. Bastards!
August 27th, 2005 at 7:06 pmI understand and sympathize with your problems – we’re in a similar bind here. Political parties are masters of presenting themselves in a way that they believe maximizes their coverage of public opinion though, so lining up behind one party or the other is circular reinforcement.
It would seem that discussion about the impact of decisions would be more productive if they were to be conducted independently, then the consensus opinion was weighed against the parties’ policies.
Of course, I would anticipate that more people would just arrive at your opinion, so perhaps you’re already doing this. Our own PM (John Howard) is Bush’s lap dog, so is less exposed than Bush. No less culpable though, and embarrasingly incapable of original thought.
August 27th, 2005 at 7:38 pmProfessor Rotunda’s letter accuses Professors Gillers et al of ignoring relevant case law in their analysis. To which I would reply: but Professor Rotunda, what about In re Continental Airlines, 901 F.2d 1253 (5th Cir. 1990)? Doesn’t that case make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Judge Roberts should have recused himself? Or did you simply ignore it in your letter to Senator Specter because it refutes the point you are trying to make? Or do you deserve a grade of “incomplete” for this little research project?
August 27th, 2005 at 9:20 pm#72
I agree 100%. Anybody that can’t see there is a cofflict of interest in this situation is ethically challenge.
August 27th, 2005 at 11:30 pmSchools that are anti-Darwin are now having to go to court to get their mal-informed students admitted to real colleges, NED.
August 28th, 2005 at 9:26 amOf course, you wouldn’t know anything about higher education, would you NED?
Coulter is a tabloid-grade pundit.
Re: #37 – NED, explain one thing to me, how do you teach Intelligent Design? It seems to me there is nothing to teach – there are no facts to support this so-called theory. I have no problem seeing it (whatever “it” is) taught in a humanities class or a comparative religion class, but it has absolutely no place in a science class.
August 28th, 2005 at 5:33 pm#76, Nor East DIMENTIA knows
NOTHING ABOUT INTELLIGENCE.
I have tried to talk some sanity into it, but
You can only beat the FARTS out of a dead horse for so long. And
You just can’t FIX STUPID.
August 29th, 2005 at 12:11 pm[...] Rotunda’s role at the Department of Defense is a conflict-of-interest in its own right. Nevertheless, Rotunda has repeatedly offered his analysis to the media and members of Congress without disclosing his job with the Defense Department. Here is what Rotunda said when confronted by the Legal Times about it: I don’t know what I was supposed to do, Should I include a long list of disclosures on every piece of legal advice I give, like you get when you buy a bottle of Benadryl? [...]
September 6th, 2005 at 11:13 amHi. Just letting you know that I enjoyed your site. Memorizing Game is always White Cards: http://www.walkthelinethemovie.com/ , Loose Chips is very good TV Central is feature of International Cosmos , Lazy TV is always Central Soldier when Stake Loose Girl Destroy
December 4th, 2005 at 2:24 pm