More Fuel For The Democrats
The Senate, currently on Summer Recess, will soon be returning to Washington DC and high on the agenda awaiting them is the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John Roberts. At least a couple of Democratic Senators are trying to grow a spine (Kennedy and Schumer), and it appears that some ammunition is being uncovered and provided to them.
First of all, today I received an email from Joe Sandler, General Counsel to the DNC. The email states (in part):
Senators who will vote on his lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court have requested documents pertaining to 16 of those cases. These were cases Roberts worked on as a senior political appointee in the first Bush administration. The cases (which are listed in the FOIA request linked below) deal with important legal issues like civil rights, equal opportunity for all, women's rights, our right to privacy, and access to justice.
The Senators' request for these documents has gone unanswered, despite the fact that the Justice Department has previously released similar records on other nominees.
So on Monday we will submit a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act from Governor Howard Dean and anyone else who wishes to be a part of it. You can read the formal request and add your name to it here .
The second, and more interesting, piece of information on Judge Roberts came out today:
WASHINGTON -- The White House broke the law when it interviewed D.C. Circuit Judge John G. Roberts last spring for the Supreme Court as he heard a challenge to the president's military tribunals, three legal ethicists said yesterday.
Roberts, nominated by President George W. Bush on July 19, should have recused himself from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to avoid an "appearance of partiality," the professors said in the online magazine Slate.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales interviewed him April 1, six days before oral arguments in the Salim Ahmed Hamdan case....
During his deliberations on Hamdan, White House officials interviewed Roberts in person twice and on the telephone several times. On May 3, Roberts met with Vice President Dick Cheney, top Bush adviser Karl Rove, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Gonzales and other senior aides.
It is important to note that the decision in the Hamdan case issued July 15, 2005. That means that Judge Roberts, a member of a three-judge panel, was simultaneously interviewing for a job on the Supreme Court with members of the Administration and deliberating on a case in which the Administration was a named party.
That kind of ethical violation by a judge is taught in law school, usually close to the time that students take the bar exam. Judge Roberts may be an intellectual powerhouse, but it appears that he either has forgotten Ethics 101, or he just doesn't care. In either case, the situation casts some serious doubts as to his suitability for the Supreme Court.
Democratic Senators, here is a chair. Kindly use it vigorously.
(Thanks to Prior Aelred for the tip on the ethics story.)
First of all, today I received an email from Joe Sandler, General Counsel to the DNC. The email states (in part):
Senators who will vote on his lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court have requested documents pertaining to 16 of those cases. These were cases Roberts worked on as a senior political appointee in the first Bush administration. The cases (which are listed in the FOIA request linked below) deal with important legal issues like civil rights, equal opportunity for all, women's rights, our right to privacy, and access to justice.
The Senators' request for these documents has gone unanswered, despite the fact that the Justice Department has previously released similar records on other nominees.
So on Monday we will submit a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act from Governor Howard Dean and anyone else who wishes to be a part of it. You can read the formal request and add your name to it here .
The second, and more interesting, piece of information on Judge Roberts came out today:
WASHINGTON -- The White House broke the law when it interviewed D.C. Circuit Judge John G. Roberts last spring for the Supreme Court as he heard a challenge to the president's military tribunals, three legal ethicists said yesterday.
Roberts, nominated by President George W. Bush on July 19, should have recused himself from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to avoid an "appearance of partiality," the professors said in the online magazine Slate.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales interviewed him April 1, six days before oral arguments in the Salim Ahmed Hamdan case....
During his deliberations on Hamdan, White House officials interviewed Roberts in person twice and on the telephone several times. On May 3, Roberts met with Vice President Dick Cheney, top Bush adviser Karl Rove, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Gonzales and other senior aides.
It is important to note that the decision in the Hamdan case issued July 15, 2005. That means that Judge Roberts, a member of a three-judge panel, was simultaneously interviewing for a job on the Supreme Court with members of the Administration and deliberating on a case in which the Administration was a named party.
That kind of ethical violation by a judge is taught in law school, usually close to the time that students take the bar exam. Judge Roberts may be an intellectual powerhouse, but it appears that he either has forgotten Ethics 101, or he just doesn't care. In either case, the situation casts some serious doubts as to his suitability for the Supreme Court.
Democratic Senators, here is a chair. Kindly use it vigorously.
(Thanks to Prior Aelred for the tip on the ethics story.)
posted by Diane at 4:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home