WP: Roberts Heard Terrorism Case as He Interviewed for Seat

[deminks]

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 17, 2005; Page A04

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was interviewing for a possible Supreme Court nomination with top Bush administration officials at the same time he was presiding over a terrorism case of significant importance to President Bush.

Roberts recently released details of the months-long interviewing process showing that he met with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other administration officials about the Supreme Court job while sitting on the three-judge panel that eventually allowed Bush to resume the use of military officers to conduct trials of terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The "military commissions" are central to Bush's anti-terrorism strategy.

Roberts met with Gonzales on April 1, six days before hearing oral arguments in the case, which resulted in a unanimous decision in favor of the administration. Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler, a top Gonzales deputy, argued the case on behalf of the administration.

One month later, with the case in progress, Roberts was summoned to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, among others. Bush conducted the final face-to-face interview on July 15 -- the same day Roberts and two other judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued the ruling in the case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601561.html?nav=rss_politics/administration

[madeline_con]

1. Did you hear about Roberts and Michael Jackson?

:evilgrin:

[caligirl]

2. scum bags!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[despairing optimist]

3. All of a sudden, my laptop started giving off an awful odor

Bush rules in Odorama. Will this sink the Roberts nomination? Well, what has stopped his ascent so far? I don't think so.

"Should" is a quaint word to those who make up their own language as they need it. So while this and other revelations should torpedo the nomination, and in other times likely would have, I don't think this will do it. The encouraging part of the story, though, is that there are probably more stories like it to come, and we'll see how much weight this already overburdened administration can handle before it folds. No "should" in there at all. It will fold. Stay tuned.

[electropop]

7. Impeached and out within the year.

I'm starting a pool. Pick yer date, place yer bet.

:smoke:

[kimpossible]

4. This is very important. Kicked and nominated!

Ever since Rachel Maddow brought up the subject last week, I've been looking for coverage.

This speaks to the real reason the neocons want Roberts. Unbending support for autocratic power to the executive, that's what they want. Civil rights and choice and all the rest are just window dressing to them.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. kick

[Marnieworld]

6. OMFG!

Seriously, this should be enough of a conflict of interest, a definite quid pro quo, that if the Dems had a freakin' backbone they could get the nomination tossed. He meets with them, gives the ruling they want, and then gets nominated? Every day I wake up to a new unbelievable outrage that will just happen and nothing is done to stop it. Why am I continually surprised when it's been like this for 5 1/2 years? I'm starting to really think we are doomed, people.

[myrna minx]

8. Quid pro quo anyone!!!???

Holy crap-these folks just never cease to amaze me. Sigh-what sucks is that the Dems won't even fight this one. :-(

[myrna minx]

9. Nominated. This is really important. n/t

[jsamuel]

10. I have been saying this the whole time! HE WAS PAYED OFF!

[zara]

11. The smell isn't from hearing the case...

that was his job after all and it was only an interview. The appearance of conflict comes with the decision, a clear victory for the administration, and then the reward, the nomination. Quid pro quo appearance is right on. But the guy had little choice but to do his job, the issue is HOW he did it. IMO

[Moosepoop]

12. I understand what you're saying...

in that Roberts had little choice but to do his job at the time.
However, I would think that he could have recused himself from the three-judge panel that was hearing the terrorism case the moment he became involved in the interviewing process for the nomination.

I don't know for a fact if that was an option -- but if it had been possible to recuse himself and be replaced on the panel by a different judge, in order to avoid any conflict of interest, then he should have done so.

[myrna minx]

13. Kick

:kick:

[nookiemonster]

14. Kick. Nominated.

eom

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

15. Judge Heard Terrorism Case As He Interviewed for Seat (Roberts-WA Post)

Judge Heard Terrorism Case As He Interviewed for Seat

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 17, 2005; Page A04

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601561.html

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was interviewing for a possible Supreme Court nomination with top Bush administration officials at the same time he was presiding over a terrorism case of significant importance to President Bush.

Roberts recently released details of the months-long interviewing process showing that he met with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other administration officials about the Supreme Court job while sitting on the three-judge panel that eventually allowed Bush to resume the use of military officers to conduct trials of terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The "military commissions" are central to Bush's anti-terrorism strategy.

---snip---

The U.S. code says only that judges should disqualify themselves from "any proceeding in which . . . impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman, said "there was no conflict whatsoever" in Roberts's presiding over the Hamdan case.

A senior administration official, who would discuss Roberts's role in Hamdan only under the condition of anonymity, said the White House believes that as long as the case was not discussed in the secret interviews, there was no reason for Roberts to recuse himself. Moreover, the official said, it would be unwise and unworkable for all judges eyeing a promotion on the federal bench, whether it is to the Supreme Court or a lower one, to step aside from cases involving the federal government because that would cover virtually every judge. The official pointed out that most of the meetings, though not all, took place before O'Connor announced her retirement on July 1.