will be the office of Rep. Tom DeLay, she announced today: “I just wanted to let him know so he’ll be in his office when we get there.”
is 12 years old.
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.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) made headlines last week when he announced his support for the United States to set a detailed timetable for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq (a position the majority of Americans support). But this quote that Feingold related on Sunday’s Meet the Press has been virtually ignored:
Let me tell you the conversation I had in the Green Zone [with] one of the top generals in Iraq when I was there with Senator Clinton and Senator McCain. I said, “Off the record, your own view, would it help if we had a timeline to let the world know that we’re not staying here forever?” And this is what he said, verbatim. He said, “Nothing would take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents more than having a timeline in place.”
The media needs to follow up on Feingold’s statement and find out why this general’s advice is being dismissed.
may have violated federal law.
That’s Tom DeLay, an Elvis impersonator, and the Mayor of Sugar Land (Texas). In the face of an ethics probe, DeLay is trying to reconnect with the folks back in his home district… which is making for some interesting social gatherings.
Is that “Casino Jack” Abramoff under the wig?
in a debate about Iraq. Watch it.
In April, Judge John Roberts “heard arguments about the Bush administration’s [Guantanamo Bay] policy 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.” The White House claims Roberts didn’t do anything wrong. Bush spokesman Steve Schmitt said “there was no conflict whatsoever.”
John Roberts knows better and we have proof.
In 1986, when John Roberts was working in the White House Counsel’s Office for President Reagan, he was asked to review a mundane request by an attorney named Lester Hyman. Roberts replied:
I must recuse myself from this matter, in light of pending discussions with Mr. Hyman’s firm about future employment.
So Roberts understands it’s unethical to make professional decisions that impact a prospective employer. When it came to the prospect of a nomination to the Supreme Court, Roberts simply set ethics aside.