Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
At least you are not trying to hide your extreme bias.
Unfortunatly for you, most mainline Dems don't think there is any reasonable reason to vote against Roberts.
From what I've seen, I agree.
This tempest in a teapot aside, he seems to be a pretty solid nominie. I could wish to know his stance on the 2nd a little better (and I did try), but can't have everything.
|
Bottomline, Lebell, IMO, we are witnessing a severely ethically challenged POTUS, using an ethically challenged shill, Ronald Rotunda, masquerading as an authority on legal ethics, who is offering an "impartial" opinion to Arlen Specter and to the American people, via the press, about the judicial conduct of an equally ethically deficient SCOTUS chief justice, nominee, John Roberts. Why the need to highlight the opinion of an obviously biased political 'hack' like Ronald Rotunda, if Roberts acted properly in not recusing himself and not informing Hamdan's attornery about meetings concerning a "dream job" on the sCOTUS, with Gonzalez, Rove, Card, et al, of the Bush admin? Should none of these officials not be expected to "know better" than to meet with Roberts when they did, and then withhold the fact that they met, from Hamdan?
Tell me what is more important a matter to dig deeply into than Bush's SCOTUS "appointments? They have more potential impact on the future of each of us, and if this research is any indication, these Bush "decisions" will be as questionable as every other major decision of his presidency has been.......
I want better for my country's highest court and it's presidency....why do you seem eager to settle for so little and chide me for having "extreme views", at the same time. Is it not equally "extreme" not to question the "stench" that these creeps bring to our formerly revered federal institutions ?
Here is an example of "fair and balanced" reporting from the news service that vP Cheney admits to "usually" watching....
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166689,00.html
Dems Question Roberts on Recusal Decision
Thursday, August 25, 2005
......Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked another pre-eminent legal scholar for his views on the issue. He received a vindication of Roberts, and of federal judges generally who wish to trade-up their seats on the federal bench.
"These people are getting positions offered all the time and there's never been a requirement they have to recuse or disqualify themselves in cases where the United Staes is a party," said George Mason University law professor Ronald Rotunda........
|
Why the spectacle of the white house caught in the act of shilling a partisan "hack" as a legal ethics "expert", supposedly offering a learned and impartial opinion of Roberts "ethics" in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, if Roberts is the impeccable nominee that the white house represents him to be?
Does Hamdan deserve even a fucking charade of fair and just legal process, at the hands of Gonzalez, Roberts, Rumsfeld, and Bush? These "leaders" appear to be deficient in so many areas that I cannot tolerate in a POTUS, an Attorney General, or a SCOTUS chief justice, that I have no choice but to lead you to this info. Please consider it, and not be distracted by your opinion of me..........
The quote boxes below are numbered to reference support of the following points:
(1) Roberts knows about the concept of recusal. He recused himself from a case involoving the ABA.
It is the opinion of a legal ethics specialist that Roberts recused himself because the ABA would
soon evaluate his suitability, ironically, for an appointment to justice of the Scotus!
(2) In a reply to an apparent request from Senate judiciary chairman, Arlen Specter (R-pa) legal ethics
"expert", Ronald Rotunda concludes that Roberts did not act improperly by not recusing himself in the
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case. No where in the letter, or in reports from MSM about Rotunda's opinion, is it
stated that Rotunda himself has recently served as "a Defense Department adviser on the military commissions",
where he defended Bush administration policy.
Quote:
http://mason.gmu.edu/%7Errotunda/bio.htm
..............Ronald D. Rotunda, the George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, joined the faculty in 2002.
......From early June, 2004 to early June, 2005, he was on leave from the law school and was the Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. .......
|
(3) Unlike other MSM news reporting, the WSJ article of aug. 25 stated, "The White House responded by marshaling two legal experts, <b>including one who recently completed a term as a Defense Department adviser on the military commissions, George Mason University Prof. Ronald Rotunda.</b>" Incomplete reports that omit Rotunda's background:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082402017.html
.............Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is looking into the case, too. In a letter sent to Specter this week, Ronald D. Rotunda, a law professor at George Mason University, said he was asked by the chairman about the propriety of Roberts's involvement in the terrorism case and found that he did nothing improper, according to a copy of the letter................
|
(4) Ronald Rotunda defends white house military hearing procedure in a letter to the editor of the American Prospect, against the conflicting argument of Yale professor, Bruce Ackerman on Oct. 15, 2004. This raises the question in my mind as to the strength of the white house argument that Roberts did not act improperly, when one of the two legal ethicists whose opinion it cites to the press, appears to be a biased, "shill", with an ehtics conflict of his own, in this matter!
(5) More research from thinkprogress org that cites a similar case of Rotunda coming out in a partisan defense of Clarence Thomas in 1991, at the behest of C. Boyden Gray, an attorney who is still working closely with this white house to support Robert's nomination, via:
Quote:
http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/about/
About Us
The Committee for Justice (CFJ) and Committee for Justice Foundation (CFJF) is composed of eminent leaders, former government officials, legal scholars, and practitioners based in Washington, DC united to defend and promote constitutionalist judicial nominees to the federal courts and educates the public on the importance of judges in American life. CFJ and CFJF were <b>founded in 2002 by former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, the groups’ chairman</b>..................
|
c. Boyden Gray's
http://committeeforjustice.org/ website could pass for the John Roberts "2005" campaign committee site...
<b>(1)</b>
Quote:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1123837514534
Roberts Recusal From ABA Case a Sign of Strict Standards?
Lily Henning
Legal Times
08-15-2005
Judge John Roberts Jr. is bowing out of a high-stakes federal appeals court case involving the American Bar Association.
The Supreme Court nominee last week recused himself from the case, in which the ABA is a party, months after he heard oral arguments in the matter..........
........Roberts' choice to leave the case, at a time when his every move is being scrutinized, may be an exercise in extreme caution, some legal experts say.
"He might have been concerned about the appearance of quid pro quo -- that a certain ruling was to thank them for their ranking," says Monroe Freedman, a specialist in legal ethics and a professor and former dean at Hofstra University School of Law.
|
<b>(2)</b>
Quote:
http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/...ethics_pr.html
August 29, 2005
Professor Rotunda Replies to Profs Gillers, Luban & Lubet (Roberts, Recusal, and Hamdan)
22 August 2005
The Honorable Arlen Specter Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Re: PROPRIETY OF JUDGE ROBERTS' FAILURE TO RECUSE HIMSELF SUA SPONTE
Dear Chairman Specter:
Introduction
You have asked me about the propriety of Judge John Roberts' failure to recuse himself in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005).......
........Conclusion
Past practice of other judges who have accepted or considered appointment for other offices, including past practice of Judge Roberts' predecessors on the D.C. Circuit, demonstrates that he did not violate 28 U.S.C. ' 455(a). If we were to interpret this statute broadly, contrary to the advice of the American Bar Association, the American Law Institute, and the case law -- if we were, in effect, to change the historical practice and adopt the Gillers Rule -- we would create a new set of problems. In particular, we would be giving members of the Administration the power to manipulate who sits on panels simply by considering one or more judges for other positions.
Instead, in my opinion, we should follow the advice of Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745 (D.C. 1989), the case on which Gillers purports to rely. Scott says, at most, that a recusal obligation arose only after the judge "had decided to accept the position in the Executive Office for United States Attorneys." In Judge Roberts' situation, by the time he was offered another judicial position, the Hamdan case had been decided.
Sincerely,
Ronald D. Rotunda
|
<b>(3)</b>
Quote:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article...f_main_tff_top
Recusal Questions for Roberts
Two Senators Ask About Participation
In Military Tribunal Case
By JESS BRAVIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 26, 2005; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- The Navy attorney assigned to represent a Guantanamo prisoner facing war crimes charges before a military commission is confronting a dilemma: How to proceed now that the case has been injected into the Supreme Court nomination battle?
A three-judge appeals court panel last month rejected Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift's challenge to the commission's legality. One of the judges was John Roberts, who in April heard arguments about the Bush administration's 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......
............After the article was published, two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Charles Schumer of New York, wrote Judge Roberts this week asking him to explain why he didn't recuse himself and whether he researched the propriety of remaining on the case.
Democrats studying Judge Roberts's legal opinions and prior work in the Reagan and first Bush administrations have found little to like about his conservative policy views. But until now, no ethical questions have been raised.
The White House responded by marshaling two legal experts, <b>including one who recently completed a term as a Defense Department adviser on the military commissions, George Mason University Prof. Ronald Rotunda.</b> In letters addressed to Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Prof. Rotunda and Professor Thomas D. Morgan of George Washington University argued that Judge Roberts's impartiality could not "reasonably be questioned," so he broke no legal or ethical rules.
|
<b>(4)</b>
Quote:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=8746
Letter to the Editor
Two law professors argue over the right way to swear in judges on a military commission.
By Bruce Ackerman and Ronald D. Rotunda
Web Exclusive: 10.15.04
...........Professor Ackerman wrote two articles, both making the same mistake and making astounding accusations. He wrote in one article that "these four experts" who took the oath "should know better." Actually, someone else should know better, and Professor Ackerman sees that person every morning when he looks in the mirror and shaves.
Ronald D. Rotunda
George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law
Arlington, VA
|
<b>(5)</b>
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/27/rotunda-ethics/
Legal Ethicist Defending Roberts Has History of Questionable Conduct
Ronald Rotunda is the law professor who argues that Judge John Roberts didn’t do anything wrong when he “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.”
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.
It turns out Rotunda is one legal ethicist with a history of questionable conduct. From Newsweek, 9/16/1991:
How does a law professor get appointed to the federal bench? Cozying up to the White House can’t hurt. University of Illinois professor Ron Rotunda submitted his name for a spot last spring. He didn’t get the job — but he’s now part of the PR machine for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. A legal ethics expert, he’s phoned reporters, published op-ed pieces and, at the behest of White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, written an essay absolving Thomas of unethical conduct in a controversial case.
Did C. Boyden Gray — who is working closely with the White House to smooth Roberts’s confirmation as head of the Committee for Justice — call Rotunda again?
|