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:
"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
From Think Progress:
"John Roberts knows better and we have proof.
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
posted by Ken at 9:04 AM
<< Home