I caught this off the internet but it seems like Justice Roberts, "bush" nominee for SCOTUS, is a hypocrite and believes himself to be above the law. The central question is did Roberts act contrary to ethical conduct by not recusing himself from a pivotal case about presidential power and "bush's" ability to hold anyone in incarceration indefinitely under the guise of "enemy combatant".

From Think Progress:

"John Roberts knows better and we have proof.

In 1986, when John Roberts was working in the White House Counsel’s Office for President Reagan, he was asked to review a mundane request by an attorney named Lester Hyman. Roberts replied:

I must recuse myself from this matter, in light of pending discussions with Mr. Hyman’s firm about future employment.

So Roberts understands it’s unethical to make professional decisions that impact a prospective employer. When it came to the prospect of a nomination to the Supreme Court, Roberts simply set ethics aside."

August 17 from Slate.com "Improper Advances" by authors Stephen Gillers, David J. Luban, and Steven Lubet:

"The challenge was brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo detainee. President Bush was a defendant in the case because he had personally, in writing, found "reason to believe" that Hamdan was a terrorist subject to military tribunals. The appeals court upheld the rules the president had authorized for these military commissions, and it rejected Hamdan's human rights claims—including claims for protection under the Geneva Conventions...

The nominee's Aug. 2 answers to a Senate questionnaire reveal that Roberts had several interviews with administration officials contemporaneous with the progress of the Hamdan

The problem is that if one side that very much wants to win a certain case can secretly approach the judge about a dream job while the case is still under active consideration, and especially if the judge shows interest in the job, the public's trust in the judiciary (not to mention the opposing party's) suffers because the public can never know how the approach may have affected the judge's thinking. Perhaps, as Judge Posner wrote, the judge may have been influenced even in ways that he may not consciously recognize...

His vote was decisive on a key question of presidential power that now confronts the nation. Although all three judges reached the same bottom line in the case, they were divided on whether the Geneva Conventions grant basic human rights to prisoners like Hamdan who don't qualify for other Geneva protections. The lower court had held that some provisions do. Judge Roberts and a second judge rejected that view."

As other commentators have pointed out that the current debate over Robert's view and attitudes about women and abortion are significant but reality is that his views on the Constitution are crucial to what kind of government we, as citizens, will have. The questions of the limits of presidential power, the ability of the Legislative and Judicial branches to do their constitutionally mandated and delineated responsiblities by the Constitution, and how power between States and the federal government is adjudicated (e.g., the commerce clause in the Constitution).

What is the most crucial however is Roberts thinking about the expansive and imperialistic view of presidential power in a time of "bush's" self-declared "war on terror". People of all political stripes should be concerned about a president having an essentially "blank check" on that individual's sole discretion on who can or cannot be an "American citizen with rights that are under the Bill of Rights" and delineated in U.S law both Federal and State statues.

Roberts is unfit to serve out his life on SCOTUS because he doesn't believe in the seperation of powers in the Constitution, nor does he believe in the necessary "checks and balances" between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as delineated by the Constitution beholden to a tripartite balancing system of governacing the people where one branch is first among equals.

-ken

Calling all poets! There will be a poetry writing workshop in Olde Town Arvada at La Dolce Vita Cafe. It is open for all ages. The topic will be "Peace".

On the same evening Arvada Peace and Justice Commission is sponsoring a public speak out open to all political persuasions and perspectives on the topic of peace/war/occupation. The speak out will be held at the public square (outdoor space) across the street from La Dolce Vita Cafe.

Cindy Lowry has been promoting both activities for the 10th. Her email is: cindy6109@earthlink.net.

As soon as I fine out the times and addresses I'll post it.

-ken

The record lows in opinion polls shows that Mr. Bush's war aims are unpopular with the American people.

Even though a lap dog mainstream press still gives Mr. Bush the benefit of doubt simply because it is good business (or else face FCC scrutiny), the people of America are fed up with his dreams of imperialist war for empire. The most clear way that can be seen is the fact that parents of draft age offspring do not want them to join the military. This is especially true in the meat grinder services of Army and Marine branches.

NYT opinion writer Frank Rich writes:

LIKE the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. "We will stay the course," he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?

However Mr. Bush and his cohorts insist on "staying the course" in Iraq.

MediaChannel.org has a long post on nine claims by Mr. Bush and his cabal about Iraq and rebuttal which shows that those claims are happening already.

Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

1) We would leave behind a civil war.

2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.

3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.

4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.

5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.

6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.

7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.

8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.

9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

In the real world there is reality, from the Washington Post:

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.

Tell me what is the reality?

The Bush version of what he wishes Iraq to become or the fact that there will be no democratic government for Iraq which will be friendly to America.

Americans are already becoming aware of the lies by Mr. Bush and his backers in corporate media.

There is good reason why people are paying attention to Karl Rove's act of treason and subsequent coverup of outing the CIA's operative, Valarie Plame, who was a WMD proliferation specialist.

This act against America and Mr. Bush's stated goal of winning the so-called "War on Terror" shows the blatant attitude that politics triumphs over all else. Mr. Bush is showing Americans that his "vision" for Iraq cannot be achieved nor does his self proclaimed "War on Terror" is serious business because of the self serving political ends it must meet first.

-ken