September 16, 2005
Roberts gets a D
Russ Feingold took Judge Roberts to the woodshed yesterday. There was some tough questioning by Feingold on how Judge Roberts could remain on the bench in the Hamden case while interviewing with Alberto Gonzales. As the L.A. Times put it, "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
This was not any old case. No, this case tested the special military tribunals for trials of alleged terrorists. And the court ruled and 2-1 that the Geneva Conventions did not protect the detainees.
Judge Roberts met with high Bush officials shortly before oral argument to discuss the Supreme Court nomination. Did he tell counsel for the plaintiffs? No way. Then he continued meeting with Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and the ever-present Karl Rove as the opinion was being written. Judge Roberts did not let the Bush team down nor will he if confirmed.
Attorney and Senator Feingold put Roberts to the test, and Roberts had the look of a fourth grader who got caught talking in class. He couldn't remember dates, couldn't reveal discussions, didn't answer Feingold's questions. It was a D or an F performance.
The Judicial Confererence of the U.S. has ruled that a "judge must recuse himself when a lawyer in a case or a party to it is in a position to influence a judge's job prospects." Well, Judge? Think defendant Bush or Attorney General Gonzales could influence your job prospects?
What would Sykes and Limbaugh say if a Democrat pulled this stunt?
post a letter about this blog »
current
--------
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003