Should Judge Roberts be impeached?

[markus]

If it can be demonstrated that Robert's ruled on a critical Bush Administration case while he was actively being interview or screened for a post on the Supreme Court, has he committed a breach of legal ethics sufficient to file a bill of impeachement?

Read this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts

There was also a post from a DU'er's blog on this subject several days ago that I can't lay hand on right now.

I *know* it will go nowhere in the House. The point is to raise the gravity of the corruption involved in the Bush Administration (again).

Also, is the ABA going to leave it's recomendation in place? Does that mean that the apperance of impropriety rule no longer applies to members of the ABA? Or just that the've been infiltrated and taken over like every other institution by the quasi-Lennist GOP.

[onenote]

1. this sounds like a real reach

I don't recall any other judge recusing themselves from hearing cases prior to being nominated for the Supreme Court (or a district judge recusing himself/herself) while being considered for an appeals court position. If there was a precedent, there might be some reason to raise this issue, but absent any precedent, this doesn't seem worth wasting time on...

onenote

[markus]

2. Where any of them being interviewed while reviewing a case

in which the White House was the plaintiff? I'll leave this to the folks who have squads of DC lawyers.

At the very least, the ABA should withdraw's in rating and reconsider, or all attorney's should be free to disreard the appearance of impropriety rule in the future.

The ink wouldn't be dry before they had 200 cosponsors if this were a Clinton Administration nominee.

[onenote]

4. without doing much research

I came up with a case brought against the Department of Energy that then-Judge Ginsburg considered around the time she was being considered for the Supreme Court. The case was argued on May 21 and decided on July 27. I have no idea when/whether Ginsburg was interviewed by Clinton, but she was nominated in early July (before the decision was issued).

In other words, it almost certainly has happened before. (By the way, the White House wasn't "plaintiff" in the case that Roberts heard; it was a suit brought against Rumsfeld --ie the Dept of Defense -- that was being appealed by Rumsfeld.)

The fact is that the kind of recusal standard being suggested would be utterly unworkable. Clinton interviewed Breyer as a possibility for the seat that went to Ginsburg, and the nominated Breyer a year later for the next vacancy. What was Breyer supposed to do? Recuse himself from every case involving the Clinton administration for the rest of Clinton's two terms? Remember, Roberts was interviewed before O'Connor made her announcement (the interviews were in April and May; O'Connor announced in July).

onenote

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Answer: Yes. Also., you make an interesting analogy....

at the end of your post w. Leninism. I think there are striking similarities w. the modern conservative movement and the old CPUSA in terms of tactics ( by *any* means necessary), self-righteousness, disingenuousness, structure ( front groups, burrowing into gov't agencies... like Roberts, for example), rigidity of thought processes.

I believe Eric Alterman has written a bit about this also.

Basically , your talking about a totalitarian ideology.

[markus]

5. Don't know about the CPUSA

I was YSA (SWP) back in the day. The largest chapter of the YSA in America was at the University of New Orleans at one time, and I got profiled in the YSA paper (without my knowledge, with ghostwritten comments).

However, unlike David Horowitz I didn't stay long enough to suffer permanent brain damage.

During my ultra-leftist period (man, would *I* be in trouble for suggesting the One True Faith is ultraleftistback then) I read all the standard texts.

I was also one of those folks who joined all of the united fronts in town to bend them to revolutionary ends.

The GOP has been following this tactic (and a laundry list of the tactics outlined first by Lennin, and later by Trotsky and his inheritors) for a long, long time.

Funny, I am now a card-carryin' member of the Democratic-NonPartisan League (the official name of the N.D. Democratic Party). I remember reading Trotsky's letters (I believe in the back of the Transitional Program) about whether the party should infiltrate (my term, not his), the NPL.

The article was one of the reason's I left the party. It was incredibly high-handed (and typical) to do something like that.

[hughee99]

6. If this is the case,

Then the * administration will "interview" any liberal who may be in a position to rule on one of their cases. This will force them to recuse themselves and then conservatives will end up making these decisions... in the end, the liberal won't get the job.

[onenote]

7. exactly

the "failure to recuse" argument is just silly and should be dropped...


onenote