On Judge Roberts: We May Have Found the Silver Bullet!

[nashuaadvocate]

This just-released Hamdan scandal is a pretty big deal, from where I'm sitting (and it seems to me The Washington Post agrees). As a practicing attorney (and some of the Senators who'll be questioning Roberts are also attorneys) I think this appears to be a major, unambiguous ethical violation. And I think most practicing criminal attorneys--not necessarily mere academics, as quoted by The Post--would agree.

While I can't know enough of the facts to issue a finalized professional opinion, from what we know now, it's an educated and reasonable and good faith observation to make, to say Roberts fucked up his ethical responsibilities royally during one of the most important Executive Powers cases of our generation.

I've blogged about this vital, just-breaking issue here.

The editorial can also be found at The Nashua Advocate.

(ON EDIT: Someone points out, below, that an ethical violation might not be enough to combat Roberts' present inertia. On the other hand, as I noted to that poster, ethical violations, as we saw in Plamegate, typically evolve into more. I do agree the Dems won't budge from their hear-no-evil/see-no-evil position unless a big issue emerges, but this is the sort of thing which in the past has derailed other Supreme Court nominees, such as, years ago, Abe Fortas, and it may just give Dems the opening they need to get more documents, and thus more information about what it is Bush is trying to hide right now--because, at base, I don't think anyone doubts he's hiding something).

S.

[Poiuyt]

1. I have a feeling it's going to take more than an ethical violation to stop

Roberts

[nashuaadvocate]

2. Maybe, maybe not--ethical violations (cf. Plamegate) typically evolve...

...into more.

S.

[gkhouston]

3. that it might.

but if somebody wants to stand up and object to Roberts and have it not be about a hot-button issue like abortion where Roberts' position is guessable yet something he could wriggle out of, this is the thing to use.

[ailsagirl]

12. But a supreme court justice with an ethical violation on his record??

I find that totally outrageous!! Aren't these justices
supposed to be justice incarnate?? The purest of the just?

I guess I'm pretty naive.
:(

[Ian David]

4. We don't want to block Roberts...

We want the reich-wing extremists to hate the Republicans that vote to confirm him.

[Laurab]

8. A nice idea, EXCEPT

we're then stuck with his lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, which may not turn out to be worth it. I think there's a lot more we need to find out about Mr. Roberts.

[Ian David]

11. We're gonna get stuck with him anyway. But we want an up-or-down vote

We want right-wing Rethugnicans on the record for supporting this guy who they think supports "The Homer-sex-yoo-ahl Ajender."

[Baconfoot]

32. He's going to be around much longer than the people you're trying to catch

with the up or down vote. The influence he personally is going to assert is enormous.

Now you might say, so will the people we'll elect in place of the bozos we catch with the up or down vote. But there are better ways to replace the bozos. Fighting for what's in the interests of the nation is just one suggestion.

[Ian David]

34. Good point, too. n/t

[Czolgosz]

28. No we want to vote against Roberts. He is among the two or three most

anti-people/pro-corporation of all the numerous candidates discussed as possible nominees. He is very young and will be on the court for ages and his views are well outside the mainstream (e.g., while the commerce clause is not a "sexy" topic, it's an important topic because it is a gateway to most federal safety, labor, and equality legislation and Roberts's views on the commerce clause and a throwback to the 1930s).

If he's getting confirmed, which still seems more likely than not, we ought to make this vote show all Americans who stands with this guy and who stands against him because he will be a force for injustice that will swing votes against the rights and freedoms of the American people for decades to come, and with each unjust ruling, we must be able to point to our votes and say, "he sits on the Supreme Court, but not with our consent!"

[Richard Steele]

5. In a nation ruled by LAWS, this would sink him.

But I doubt it will matter much here in the USA.

[nashuaadvocate]

6. Seems to me...

...folks here have given up on the Roberts fight. Am I right? It's odd, because a couple weeks ago I argued strongly that there wasn't anything in the record which would preclude him from being approved, but then this ethical violation came up, and even I--a skeptic--thought this was a good start to a serious challenge. But I guess no one else thinks it's worth pursuing!
S.

(ON EDIT: The plot thickens).

[Ian David]

15. If Roberts was a gay male prostitute with a "Judicial Studs" website...

he would still get confirmed.

I think the best we can do is give him an up-or-down vote and let the Rethugnicans go on record.

[Czolgosz]

29. The process of building momentum has been slow, but the fight has never

been abandoned.

[enough]

7. kick

[rateyes]

9. Someone needs to ask the ABA..

for a position paper on this.

[nashuaadvocate]

10. NOW we're talking!

[rateyes]

13. Can you do it?

Did I read right that you are a practicing attorney--or were you referring to Roberts?

[nashuaadvocate]

26. Yes, I'm a practicing attorney; but, I'm not a member of the federal bar.

I'm a state bar member.

S.

[rateyes]

30. OK. Any Federal Bar Members here at DU?

Time to step up to the plate. And, can anyone ask for such a thing? Layperson?

[ailsagirl]

14. Hi nashaadvocate!! Good to see you here

:hi:

[hang a left]

36. Read earlier today

the ABA gave him a "highly qualified" rating, which is the highest rating they assign.

[rateyes]

38. Did they know about this ethical "lapse" at the time...

sounds like a chargable offense in front of ethics board to me.

[nashuaadvocate]

40. That's true--but it was well before these new revelations. nt

S.

[jsamuel]

16. HE GAVE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WAY TOO MUCH POWER AND WAS PAYED WITH A

SUPREME COURT NOMINATION

[rateyes]

18. I hear you...

we should be asking, not for his confirmation to SCOTUS for this, but for his IMPEACHMENT from the DC circuit!!

[jsamuel]

19. And his ruling should be overturned

[rateyes]

31. Yes, it should, and it should go before another

court. Unethical conduct in the justice system should be damned serious business. Hell, they impeached a president for perjury about SEX----they're going to give a guy a pass for this? Hypocrites.

[On the Road]

23. That's It -- the Quid pro Quo

Didn't think of it that way until now.

[jbnow]

17. This is a shocking lapse, even to me

and I am not a lawyer. But I know ethical lawyers/judges are so careful about things like this.
My uncle is a judge and I began to be aware of their caution when I wrote a check to donate to the campaign. I thought they were going to run out of the room! They wouldn't touch it, evidently you can't take donations directly. Could be seen as a conflict, I might expect favors. (I assured them I'd expect no favors for the donation, it was our relationship I'd expect to cash in on)
They told me to put it away but did tell me who I could give it to. I was on my way out of town and wouldn't have time to do that, so I told them I was kidding about it being a donation, it was a late birthday present. They would not touch it whatever I tried to call it.

I did get it to the right person later. But I asked my uncle why it was such a big deal. He told me many things that would be a big deal when it comes to being or running for judge and how you have to go overboard to avoid even the appearance, however innocent it was. He felt if you did less you give people a reason to trust you less, that you owed the public being absolutely aboveboard in all areas or you shouldn't even consider being a judge.

He was so vehement about it and this was not a high court. It made such an impression on me that I am really put off by Robert's behavior here...and of those who interviewed him during that time, putting him in this position. But Roberts even more. Like my uncle he should have run out of the room.

[dxstone]

20. If they can't get him for his piracy on the high seas, what WILL stick?

What's that you say? INCONCEIVABLE? And yet it happened...
Actually, no big deal; they're ALL pirates, and EVERYBODY knows it!

Ok, enough levity; on a serious note:
I'm sorry to see you're closing down shop on your website (and I'm really confused as to why. Running a website is not at all that expensive; even a starving piss-poor punk(in) like myself has no problem keeping my site going month after month, and I have not yet garnered ANY of the critical praise and contacts you seem to enjoy... I am in fact JUST shy of living under a bridge, have been the entire last 6 months... so I wish you would share with me in greater detail why you need to pull the plug on an endeavor that has made such impressive progress in its short 1/2-year tenure--but if not, well, what can I say but good luck to you at any rate!
Best,
d
ps: Kicked and nominated! Sounds like important news to me!

[nashuaadvocate]

27. Dxstone...

...as they say, time is money. When something takes a lot of time, and the folks involved don't have a lot of money, spending all the time can be a drain on earning the money. Would that it were otherwise!

S.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. Please ignore the riff raff

This is a serious matter and I hope you have the ways and means to pursue this.

I think if Roberts gets on the Supreme Court we'll all be learning the goose step soon.

Thanks for trying so hard.

[dxstone]

39. Just curious, DYEW... what "riff-raff" might you be referring to? n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. The riff-raff are the ones

that like to tell other people not to do anything, to just give up because its a done deal. The ones that continue to try to convince us that we are powerless and can't change anything. If we listen to the riff-raff then all we will do is maintain the status quo which would make the Bushbots lives so much easier. That is not what we are about around here. That is not the way we are going to change anything. And I for one, am getting sick and tired of them popping into every thread.

[dxstone]

42. Couldn't agree with you more!

Glad we're on the same page!
:toast:
d
ps: MANY people on DU don't seemm to 'get' the inclusion of humor into these threads; I'm constantly attacked for doing what I think of as my part in adding a bit of levity here and there, and using satire to point up the foibles and inconsistencies in our VERY wayward 'leadership'...
So I'll be honest; I was a little taken aback, thinking you'd meant me... and there are actually VERY FEW critics of this bullshit admin as venomous and vitriolic as yours truly; beyond the art I do, I also am a writer, and was taking these guys to task in print even BEFORE they stole the election of 2000 and began their continuous onslaught on ALL the ideals and freedoms that we as Americans should hold dear.
So forgive me my paranoia... I've just been kicked a helluva lot this week...

[Al-CIAda]

22. Love ya, NA. thanks for doing what you do. nt

[nashuaadvocate]

33. 'Preciate the kind words, friend.... :-) nt

[DemReadingDU]

24. Thanks for sharing with us!

[Czolgosz]

25. No question. That's a huge breach of ethics. Which code of conduct

expressly governs judges sitting on the DC Circuit? Is Hamdan raising this in motions for reconsideration and disqualification?

Combined with Roberts's well outside the mainstream views on Federalism and on the First Amendment and racial and gender equality, that should make the confirmation process much trickier.

This reminds me of Scalia's refusal to recuse himself from Chaney's case.

[rateyes]

35. Recusal rules are there for a reason...

I hope someone brings charges against him in front of the Bar's ethics committee (or whatever group it is that can disbar him.)

[enough]

37. Disgusting. (nt)