Conflicts keep Roberts out of appeals

ap on Yahoo ^ | 11/07/05 | AP

[NormsRevenge]

Chief Justice John Roberts bowed out of a major war powers case on Monday because he had handled it as an appeals court judge. Without Roberts, the Supreme Court could deadlock 4-4.

Roberts has had other recusals as well in his first weeks on the court.

Justices do not usually explain why they are withdrawing from a case, although Roberts' conflicts seem to stem from his participation in cases at the appeals court in Washington, from ties to his former law firm and from his financial holdings.

_He did not participate on Monday when the court refused to take up an appeal from Golden Pacific Bancorp., the holding company for a bank that was liquidated in 1985 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

_Last week he acknowledged making a mistake in taking part in the early stages of a patent infringement appeal. He will not sit when the court hears arguments next year from Burlington, N.C.-based Laboratory Corp., which is represented by Roberts' former law firm, Hogan & Hartson.

_He did not participate in October arguments in a case that involves disputes between school districts and parents of children with special education needs. Lawyers from his old law firm are representing the Maryland school district in the appeal.

_He has declined to participate in a variety of appeals, which were turned down without comment, including cases involving Microsoft Corp., Nokia Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co.

[AntiGuv]

Many comments in this thread as kind of ridiculous. Justice Roberts is recusing himself from precisely those cases that U.S. Title 28, Section 455 says he shall recuse himself from (e.g., when he issued a former ruling on the case or when a lawyer with whom he practiced law served as a lawyer in the case during that time).

[Namyak]

He's no longer impartial... he's already rendered judgment since he already ruled on this particular case. If anyone here believes in the Constitution as it was written, Chief Justice Roberts clearly has to recuse himself.

[AntiGuv]

That should say "many comments in this thread are kind of ridiculous" - actually, scratch the "kind of" (I read some more of them).

[AntiGuv]

You know I've long wondered what would happen if a justice challenged the constitutionality of Article 28, Section 455. Wouldn't all the judges have to recuse themselves?? :)

[msnimje]

Justice Ginsburg needs to recuse herself from any and all cases to which the ACLU is a party

Do you think John Roberts should recuse himself from every case to which a Republican is a party?

[pyx]

If Roberts were honest, he'd order Bader Ginsburg OUT

Order ? Under what provision ?

[pyx]

he'd [Roberts] order Bader Ginsburg OUT

Ruth Bader Ginsberg may well be a piece of communist filth, but she does not report to C.J. Roberts. That's not how the Supreme Court works.

[JLS]

But then it comes back to the full court from another district? Or must Roberts recuse from those cases?

[muawiyah]

Roberts, as Chief Justice, can create such a rule.

One of the weapons he has to enforce such orders is the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court. He can assign parking privileges, rooms, area for staff, heat, air conditioning, water, restroom privileges, etc. These are not the only methods available.