The LA Times offered an opinion yesterday regarding a decision of John G. Roberts, Jr.’s decision not to recuse himself in a case of interest to the administration while the administration was considering him for a Supreme Court nomination.
Roberts’ bad decision
By Stephen Gillers, David Luban and Steven LubetJUST FOUR DAYS before the Bush administration named John G. Roberts Jr. to fill retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court, the District of Columbia federal appeals court decided a case called Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. In a crucial victory for the administration, the court upheld President Bush’s creation of special military tribunals for trials of alleged terrorists and denied them the protection of the Geneva Convention. Roberts was one of the judges who decided that case, but he should have recused himself.While the case was pending in his court, Roberts was interviewing with high White House officials — including Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove — for a seat on the Supreme Court. In the words of the federal law on judicial disqualification, this placed the judge in a situation where "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Senators Aim to Solve the John Roberts Puzzle (Los Angeles Times)
Los Angeles Times - WASHINGTON For the 26-year-old John G. Roberts Jr., the first year of th