A Shaky Ethics Charge (Against Roberts in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld)

Washington Post ^ | September 6, 2005 | Ronald D. Rotunda

[RWR8189]

Does John Roberts have an ethics problem?

Three ethics professors argue that Roberts, whom President Bush has just nominated to be chief justice, should have disqualified himself from a case he helped decide earlier this year while serving as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which concerns a key issue in the administration's war on terrorism, may be headed for the Supreme Court, and at the time of the appeals court ruling, Roberts was being considered for a vacancy on the high court, though it did not yet exist.

The three professors -- Stephen Gillers of New York University, David J. Luban of Georgetown University and Steven Lubet of Northwestern University -- say that in not disqualifying himself, Roberts violated the "appearance of impartiality." If true, it may become a prominent issue because it offers one of the few arguments against Roberts. In the case at issue, the appeals court upheld the constitutionality of the administration's plan to use military commissions to try terrorist suspects.

Just a short time ago, Gillers said that he "saw no problem" with the fact that Bush met with Roberts about the Supreme Court vacancy on July 15, the same day the appeals court ruled 3 to 0 in Bush's favor in Hamdan. But Gillers said he changed his mind after Roberts disclosed the White House interviews in his Senate questionnaire. What seems to be crucial is that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales spoke to Roberts on April 1, six days before oral arguments in the Hamdan case.

Gillers and his colleagues conclude that Roberts violated a federal statute that requires what Gillers calls "an appearance of impartiality."

[MNJohnnie]

He recueses himself from that particular case. Next weak brain dead Leftist assault please. BTW, did these same "Professors" demand that 3 Gore contributors on the Fla Supreme Court step down in Nov 2000?

[George W. Bush]

This is no great grounds to oppose Roberts. He will still only have one vote and no serious person is likely to believe that he is actually more conservative than Rehnquist would have been.

It don't wash.

[jmaroneps37]

This is a great development. It is too attractive for the rats to stay away from yet it is no more than evil cotton candy. In politics and humor: If you have to explain it too much, it aint and issue or a joke. This will fall flat.