Washington Post Papers Over Ethics Controversy
Washington Post Papers Over Ethics Controversy
Today, the Washington Post printed an editorial by Ronald Rotunda defending John Roberts’s ethical conduct. Rotunda argues it was perfectly appropriate for Roberts to hear arguments about the Bush administration’s policy on military commissions in Guantanamo at the same time he was interviewing for a Supreme Court appointment with top White House officials.
Here is how the Post bills Rotunda:
The writer is a law professor at George Mason University; he rejoined the faculty in June after working at the Defense Department and was not assigned to the Hamdan case.
The Post doesn’t mention that Rotunda was working at Defense Department as a legal advisor for military commissions. In other words, he was directly involved in the exact subject of the case in controversy. When Roberts sided with the Bush administration, he validated Rotunda’s work.
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?
Yes. You should include relevant disclosures before you give legal advice. For more info, see The Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rotunda has a long history of using his ethics opinions to curry favor with the White House. The Washington Post shouldn’t be helping him.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Don’t you know — The Post doesn’t research lies before it prints them:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_09_04.php#006418
September 6th, 2005 at 11:21 amI know it’s not possible to do this in all stories, but readers sometimes don’t remember that the bad behavior of the WaPO, NYT etc also influences all fo the other outlets that they own.
They don’t have to tell the other outlets what to do, they can just hire people who will generally stay in line, and also supply stories to them.
Post
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/washpost.asp
Times
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/nyt.asp
Whole lsit
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/
September 6th, 2005 at 11:28 amRotunda knows no one will pay attention to this. We’ll get all worked up in the blogosphere and then the Post and other will continue to print his garbage. Ugh.
September 6th, 2005 at 11:56 amWe progressives know that Roberts is portraying himself as Anakin Skywalker when he really is already serving the “dark side”. But when everything is said and done, will he still be the Chief Justice? I think if we answer honestly, he will be. My worry is; is there going to be a political cost in 2006 for a strong opposition?, and what do we have to gain by a strong opposition?. I believe the mid-terms are all we should be concentrating on for the next year. We have one party rule in this country with no checks on power (neo-media is not reliable), this as we have seen, is the SINGLE LARGEST THREAT TO AMERICA. If you can answer my above questions Judd, I will get onboard opposing Roberts. Until then I remain focused on 2006.
September 6th, 2005 at 12:15 pmMr. Roberts is zee man our dear leader believes in, zo you people are verboten to say anything against dear leader or Mr. Roberts.
ve have vays of dealing vith peoples like you.
Heil shrub, heil roberts.
(sarcasm)
Just because they tell you Roberts is “somewhere between liberal and conservative” does not mean IT IS TRUE. DUMBYA LIES SO MUCH, someone else has to call his dog.
September 6th, 2005 at 1:25 pmI guess when roberts helped to stop the 2000 florida recount, it put him on dumby’s ‘be-holdin” list.
I suppose a lifetime job with health insurance and great salary aren’t too much to ask for overthrowing a presidential election.
After all that is the way this “trickle ON economics” work.
Heck I bet if you killed a gay or black for dumbya he may get you a job too. You just never know.
September 6th, 2005 at 1:28 pmThe most influential and powerful newspapers in the nation are corrupted – who does the public have to turn to? This must be how anarchy begins.
September 6th, 2005 at 1:47 pmroberts for Chief Justice. The man is not even qualified to be on the supreme court. Besides, he could not even carry a chiefs beads and feathers.
September 6th, 2005 at 3:53 pmI rest my case…hurry hurry,rush rush get roberts in!
September 6th, 2005 at 4:29 pmBush just made him “CHIEF” justice…slam dunk…
sig heil!…using his so called ‘political capital’??? to stack the deck again.
Judd –
Do you have anything to say on the recusal issue beyond ad hominem attacks on Rotunda? I’ve yet to see any substantive critique on this site of his 15-page opinion letter or the Post op-ed. Is that the best you can do?
September 6th, 2005 at 10:05 pmDid any of you ever wonder about what happens to your social security money you pay in if you are single and die before retirement?
Lets just say…. begin work at 18 and go till 60…. so that is 42 years… even at a modest $8.00 per hour average of 35 hours per week (this is just off the top of my head)….. $14,560 per year – you pay 8% they match it so 16% (taking into account things change so I average)…. $2329.60 annually…plus 4% (I am sure the financial guru’s get a better return on this)… so $100 interest annually ….. I don’t compound this for simplicity….
I get $102,043.20…. so if you die at 60…. single (or gay in a relationship) the GOVERNMENT GETS YOUR MONEY…
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
September 7th, 2005 at 3:31 amIT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! THIS ADMINISTRAION (FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM) WANTS A 95% WORLD POUPLATION DECREASE.
Guess they are all about the numbers too.
September 7th, 2005 at 3:33 amI had Ron Rotunda as an ethics professor at the University of Illinois College of Law (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth). In an exchange of e-mails, he tells me that the did not work as an advisor for the military commissions. So, his supposed “conflict of interest” is less than clear to me. Nonetheless, as I pointed out in my e-mail to Prof. Rotunda, his defense of Judge Roberts was weak. Judge Roberts should have done the right thing and recused himself if he knew that he was under consideration to be nominated to the Supreme Court. That’s what ethics is all about – avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.
September 7th, 2005 at 2:47 pmThe righties didn’t want Soc. Sec. since day one. When medical advances began to extend the average life span, the righties became nearly apopleptic. Then they laid their plan, got the appropriate people in power (by hook or by crook) and are marching forward in steps toward dismantling the program altogether. Many of the people in the flood are poor and old, collecting Soc. Sec., that they might die as a result of this is just a little acceleration in their grand plan.
September 7th, 2005 at 3:12 pmRoberts is being PAID FOR HIS SERVICES TO THIS administration….
BY BEING GIVEN A LIFE TIME JOB AND A ZEALOT AGENDA!
September 9th, 2005 at 3:48 amvery nice site. please keep updating it. when tv roll mistery rape: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/ , Superb Round is always Tremendous Pair right stake will loose boy without any questions , Greedy Soldier Play or not to roll corner you should be very big
December 1st, 2005 at 3:05 amHi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! ue6YYwXTnOje2
January 12th, 2007 at 1:24 am