Roberts' ruling in Bush's favor debated- Terrorism case came as White House was interviewing him

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 9/22/5 | Bob Egelko

[SmithL]

There's no dispute that chief justice nominee John Roberts met with high-level White House officials while his appellate court was considering a case of enormous importance to the Bush administration, on the president's power to try battlefield captives and foreign terror suspects before military commissions.

There is considerable dispute, among legal ethics experts as well as supporters and opponents of Roberts, about whether his contacts amounted to a conflict of interest that should have disqualified him from the case.

"A reasonable person might question his impartiality when he sat on an appellate panel that directly and widely expanded the president's powers'' while he was under consideration by the president for a seat on the Supreme Court, said Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents military detainees, in testimony opposing Roberts' nomination.

Roberts' supporters say a president and his staff must be allowed to interview candidates for higher courts -- including federal judges who routinely hear cases involving the government -- without running afoul of conflict-of-interest laws.

The "outrageous attack (by Roberts' opponents) implies that every federal judge who might possibly be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court must recuse themselves from cases involving the U.S. government. That would paralyze the federal judiciary,'' White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee votes today on President Bush's nomination of the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Roberts' court in Washington, D.C., is weighing a motion by lawyers for a Guantanamo Bay prisoner to set aside its July 15 ruling because of Roberts' participation.

That appeals court ruling freed Bush from the restrictions of the Geneva Conventions,

[SmithL]

The partisan sniping goes on, and on, and on.

[Spunky]

Listening to Teddy Kennedy on C-Span 3 now. Is there a thread up anywhere on the vote being taken today?

[Dog]

Leave it to the media to run a hit piece on the day the Senate moves him out of committee.

[Dog]

Yes I'll ping you to it.

[NonLinear]

The "outrageous attack (by Roberts' opponents) implies that every conservative federal judge who might possibly be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court must recuse themselves from cases involving the U.S. government. That would paralyze the federal judiciary,''

[Spunky]

Thanks!

[frankjr]

It's probably not a good idea to bad mouth Roberts right before he becomes Chief Justice.

[Dog]

Check your pings.

[inquest]

If a judge in Roberts' position had to step down, Rotunda said, a president could force a hostile judge off a case by contacting the judge about a possible vacancy on a higher court.

That objection doesn't hold water. It shouldn't be that hard for a judge to tell the difference between a bona fide offer of a nomination and a purely contrived and disingenuous offer.

[IMRight]

Ohhh... what a great idea.

If anything critical comes before an appeals court Bush should just call the most liberal justices and interview them for a possible promotion. Then they must recuse themselves from the case.


Right?

[zendari]

Interviewing for what? There was no court vacancy at the time.

[jim macomber]

That appeals court ruling freed Bush from the restrictions of the Geneva Conventions,

Oh, it did not!! Good Lord!

When, oh when, will I cease to amazed at the knowing duplicity of the media?

[inquest]

See the post immediately above yours.

[Still Thinking]

If anything critical comes before an appeals court Bush should just call the most liberal justices and interview them for a possible promotion. Then they must recuse themselves from the case.

Duh! Only Republicans need worry about conflict of interest, or the "appearance" of conflict of interest, or the "appearance of the appearance" of conflict of interest, or emanations from the penumbra of the conflict of interest, or whatever. Any dyed in the wool liberal is for the little guy so his integrity is beyond question. Don't you know anything?

[Still Thinking]

If anything critical comes before an appeals court Bush should just call the most liberal justices and interview them for a possible promotion. Then they must recuse themselves from the case.

Duh! Only Republicans need worry about conflict of interest, or the "appearance" of conflict of interest, or the "appearance of the appearance" of conflict of interest, or emanations from the penumbra of the conflict of interest, or whatever. Any dyed in the wool liberal is for the little guy so his integrity is beyond question. Don't you know anything?

[Still Thinking]

Erps! Sorry about the double post. Connection's a little slow today.