Roberts and Cheney have a connection

[FreedomAngel82]

Now I know why Bush is nominating this guy besides there not being much on him in the MSM and his anti-abortion stuff. It's about Cheney.

Link: http://www.total411.info/

Snip: < Judge Roberts was one of the dissenters in the court's 5-3 denial of a petition for rehearing en banc (with one judge not participating) filed by the Bush Administration in its continuing efforts to avoid releasing records pertaining to Vice President Cheney's energy task force. This ruling came in litigation brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club charging that the Vice President's task force had violated federal law by not making its records public. The court's ruling marked "the fourth time a judicial panel has rebuffed efforts to keep the information from the public." Carol D. Leonnig, "Energy Task Force Appeal Refused," Washington Post (Sept. 12, 2003). At the Administration's urging, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case; a decision is expected by the end of June 2004. You may recall that lawsuit produced documents proving that Cheney and his oil cronies were carving up maps of Iraq's oilfields months, or even years before the invasion. And then, just last Friday, Roberts earned his final bones just lastweek by backing the military detention of "enemy combatants" -- even Americans-- in the Guantanamo concentration camp in the name of the unConstitutional undeclared War on Terror. This is from an opinion Roberts signed on to issued last Friday, July 15 2005 in the case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld:

"The trial and punishment of enemy combatants," the Court further held, is thus part of the "conduct of war." Id. We think it no answer to say, as Hamdan does, that this case is different because Congress did not formally declare war. It has been suggested that only wars between sovereign nations would qualify for such a declaration. See John M. Bickers, Military Commissions are Constitutionally Sound: A Response to Professors Katyal and Tribe, 34 TEX. TECH. L. REV. 899, 918 (2003). Even so, the joint resolution "went as far toward a declaration of war as it might, and as far or further than Congress went in the Civil War, the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion, the Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the Gulf War, and numerous other conflicts." Id. at 917. The plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in suggesting that a military commission could determine whether an American citizen was an enemy combatant in the current conflict, drew no distinction of the sort.