Breakdown of Trust Led Judge Luttig To Clash With Bush

Wall Street Journal ^ | 5/11/06 | JESS BRAVIN and J. LYNN LUNSFORD

[mathprof]

After Fight in Terrorism Case, Conservative Star Gives Up Court Seat for Boeing Job.

On Nov. 22, U.S. Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig was at work in his chambers here when he received a telephone call telling him to switch on the television. There, he saw Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announce that the government would file charges against Jose Padilla in a federal court -- treating the accused terrorist like a normal criminal suspect.

The judge was stunned. Two months earlier, he had written a landmark opinion saying the government could hold Mr. Padilla without charge in a military brig. (Read the opinion.1) The decision validated President Bush's claim that he could set aside Mr. Padilla's constitutional rights in the name of national security. The judge assumed the government had a compelling reason to consider the suspect an extraordinary threat. Now Mr. Gonzales wanted the courts to forget the whole case.

It didn't take long for the judge's anger to burst out into the open. The next month he wrote that moves such as the attorney general's cast doubt on the Bush administration's "credibility before the courts." Judge Luttig tried to block Mr. Padilla's transfer to civilian custody from the brig. (Read the opinion.2) The administration's top litigator fired back that the judge "defies both law and logic."

The clash, which underscores the increasing skepticism among even some conservative jurists toward the Bush administration's sweeping theories of executive power, culminated yesterday in Judge Luttig's resignation. The 51-year-old judge, once considered a likely Bush nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, stepped down from his lifetime seat on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to start a new career in Chicago as general counsel for Boeing Co.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since when does a ruling by the judiciary that something "could" be done translate into a requirement that it "must" be done?

Since when do you take the word of reporters for reasons people act when they have not said so publically?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your tag should say "Spreading a new line of Bullshit"

[Vision]

There was no "headache" involved in quitting the bench. What did I miss?

Did you read the article?

[ContemptofCourt]

It is extremely unusual for a circuit judge to resign. In the last 20 years, 3 have resigned from the Appellate bench. One of those was Chertoff, who took a position with the DHS. One was Judge Tim Lewis of the 3d Cir., who went nuts.

Going back 200 years to the start of the federal appellate courts, only a handful of circuit court judges have resigned.

In other words, it is not a position that you just resign, even if you get a plum corporate counsel job. And especially if you are only 51 and conceivably will live through 5 more administrations and are an "A" lister for the USSCt.

[pollyannaish]

Excuse me, but if you disagree with Gonzales, do so. Making racial comments in relationship to that is wrong. It has nothing to do with his heritage.

[pollyannaish]

Is Luttig actually quoted anywhere in this article...or is it just "sources close to...?"

From the tone, my suspicion is that it is further efforts to separate the GOP.

[oceanview]

on the contrary - the administration knew that the SCOTUS would rule for Padilla - so they wanted to short circuit the case, and not have a SCOTUS precedent on the enemy combatant situation. this call to Luttig was essentially a request to help out. he stiffed them.

in the end, the SCOTUS punted on the ruling anyway.

Luttig can enjoy his new job.

[oceanview]

no, it shows government could not try the dirty bomber charge with civilian court rules. we should have learned from the Moussaui sentencing case, that they were right.

you don't agree with Luttig. Luttig would have allowed a military tribunal - but his word wasn't the final one, and there was clearly 5 votes on the SCOTUS for Padilla (Scalia being one of them). The flip on the charges was simply a way for the government to avoid a landmark decision on enemy combatants from the SCOTUS (which we did anyway) - Luttig didn't want to help out, so he can take his a*s to Boeing now.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I read the exerpt. No "headache" there? Or heartburn or piles.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I believe there have been more than 3 federal judges who have resigned in the last 20 years. It is unusual no doubt.

But in any case I see no reason that he would have resigned because of the reason given. Judges don't resign even after they have opinions unanimously reversed.

[Vision]

Are you joking? How about you read three of the four paragraphs from the excerpt

The judge was stunned. Two months earlier, he had written a landmark opinion saying the government could hold Mr. Padilla without charge in a military brig. (Read the opinion.1) The decision validated President Bush's claim that he could set aside Mr. Padilla's constitutional rights in the name of national security. The judge assumed the government had a compelling reason to consider the suspect an extraordinary threat. Now Mr. Gonzales wanted the courts to forget the whole case.

It didn't take long for the judge's anger to burst out into the open. The next month he wrote that moves such as the attorney general's cast doubt on the Bush administration's "credibility before the courts." Judge Luttig tried to block Mr. Padilla's transfer to civilian custody from the brig. (Read the opinion.2) The administration's top litigator fired back that the judge "defies both law and logic."

The clash, which underscores the increasing skepticism among even some conservative jurists toward the Bush administration's sweeping theories of executive power, culminated yesterday in Judge Luttig's resignation. The 51-year-old judge, once considered a likely Bush nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, stepped down from his lifetime seat on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to start a new career in Chicago as general counsel for Boeing Co.

[justshutupandtakeit]

None of that says anything about a "headache". Allegations from dubious sources about his motivation and his unhappiness are only that.

Where does a headache come into the picture? He decides to resign and does so. A "headache" would mean there was some problem with resigning or it could not be done easily or some such thing.

[Vision]

You can't be serious

[ncountylee]

I look for Luttig to rise higher in Boeing, future president or CEO. Boeing has had several ethics problems at the top and he is above reproach.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is nothing in that excerpt indicating a "headache". It indicates he was unhappy with the constitutionally accepable action of the President. What does that have to do with a "headache". Maybe another term might accurately describe what you want described but "headache" ain't it.

[Vision]

Please meditate on this for the next week. And they we'll resume the discussion. How's that?

[Prost1]

"Find a Terrorist, Kill a Terrorist!"

Those should be the only operational Orders!

[GretchenM]

There are people on FR who are, as I said, trying to kill off the effectiveness of good leaders through death by a thousand cuts. It's one thing to post an article that points out where Bush or Cheney or Rice or etc. does something less than stellar. It's quite another to follow the post with such tripe as, "This confirms ... my rapidly falling opinion of Bush and Gonzales." And that is the point I made in my post.

[Louis Foxwell]

snip must compromise with those elected by the other 90% of the nation. snip That seems to have escaped your consciousness.

________________________

More conservative than Reagan?
Does your consciousness include a commitment to principle or simply going along to get along?

[GSlob]

Well, being a good leader is not a position one could hold by any right - there's no tenure or freehold in it. One could be a good leader only on a minute-to-minute basis. Since 2001 the "good leadership" streak in the current administration shows visible ebbing.
Besides, what is leadership? Management? - then Jimmy Carter was a great leader, he managed even the tennis courts. So it is emphatically not management. Then what are the functions unique to leadership? Is it delegation? - nope. Managers do it all the time. The unique function of leadership is purely psychological - inspirational in nature. The quality of charisma comes very close. A good leader manages to project the wishes and aspirations of others [many others] into himself and becomes an inspirational symbol, similar to a carved dragonhead on Viking longboats. That dragonhead was always pointing in the direction the boat sailed, and did not have much in terms of other functions.
That's why Ronald the Great was "the Great". The nitty-gritty of his actual accomplishments is purely secondary. But he gave the country a measure of self-assurance - a purely psychological attainment. The rest of it followed.
So, returning to the present crop of "leaders", it could be seen with unaided eye that they come woefully short.