This conflict of interest ALONE should have all Dems vote NO on Roberts

[Generator]

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert?alertid=8028061&content_dir=ua_congressorg

http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/050818.html

In another Roberts development, new details are emerging over a potentially serious conflict of interest. Since 2003, Roberts served on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

As we reported previously, Roberts was part of a three-judge panel that handed President Bush an important victory the week before he announced Roberts' nomination to the bench. The appeals court ruled in the Hamdan V. Rumsfeld case that the military tribunals of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed. The decision also found that Bush could deny terrorism captives prisoner-of-war status as outlined by the Geneva Conventions.

Well, new details have emerged concerning the timing of Roberts' interviews for the Supreme Court post with senior Bush administration officials which call into question his impartiality in the Hamdan case. Roberts" answers to a Senate questionnaire reveal that he met with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales six days before hearing oral arguments. The Hamdan case was argued on behalf of the administration by a top Gonzales deputy, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kiesler.

In addition to Gonzales, he met with Vice President Dick Cheney, the vice president's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove and White House legal council Harriet Miers. And, on the day the ruling was issued in favor of the administration, Bush himself conducted the final job interview with Roberts.

******
Oh no, this is never mentioned on CNN or Hardball. Never a word of it issues from our so called Democratic leader's mouths.

This guy is a handpicked yes man to everthing Bush wants. And that's total power-life and death even without address in any court. Oh well!

[MarvinBarns]

1. Where are out troops, where are our attorneys.

Roberts, Katrina, Rita..........all disasters.

[Generator]

2. Roberts knew he was acting unethically

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/26/roberts-ethics/


Oops..

In 1986, when John Roberts was working in the White House Counsel’s Office for President Reagan, he was asked to review a mundane request by an attorney named Lester Hyman. Roberts replied:

I must recuse myself from this matter, in light of pending discussions with Mr. Hyman’s firm about future employment.

So Roberts understands it’s unethical to make professional decisions that impact a prospective employer. When it came to the prospect of a nomination to the Supreme Court, Roberts simply set ethics aside.

Oh and from the comments section:

Of course Roberts knew he was breaking an ethics rule by interviewing for a position without recusing himself from a case involving the party with whom he was seeking employment. All U.S. Government workers in potentially sensitive positions receive annual ethics training, and the topic about seeking employment is covered in the training each time it is presented. Even low-level civil servants are required to notify their supervisors when they are as much as approached about possible employment by parties their agency might do business with.

Comment by NJ — August 26, 2005

[leesa]

3. Well, not to mention that he has zero experience, helped cover-up

Iran-Contra and helped engineer the coup in 2000.