The problem with John Roberts

[struggle4progress]

Having read hundreds of pages of John Roberts' record in his years at the Justice Department and in private practice, I do not question that this amiable, quick-witted nominee to the Supreme Court has extensive experience in the law. But the prospect of Roberts as chief justice of the High Court for the next few decades is very troubling, especially since our worldwide war on terrorism keeps testing the firmness of our constitutional separation of powers.

For the last two years, Roberts, as a judge on the influential District of Columbia Court of Appeals, has spoken for himself -- not for the Justice Department or his private clients.

Significantly, in a key decision on the president's view of his powers as commander in chief, Judge Roberts joined with two of his colleagues in the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld; the ruling gave this and succeeding presidents the unreviewable power to bypass civilian courts -- and previous due-process protections of our military courts -- in the treatment of prisoners suspected of involvement in terrorism. <snip>

http://pryordailytimes.com/articles/2005/09/08/news_content/editorial/edit06.txt

[ManiacJoe]

1. Seems to be a mixed bag.

Robert's ruling on the Geneva Conventions sounds about right. The GC has a very strict definition of POW that most (all?) at Gitmo do not meet. Some of the other rulings are questionable, but then so are some of the latest rulings from the USSC.

Here is an interesting write up on the case
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dorf/20050720.html

The larger problem seems to be the international handling of terrorism. I have seen some interesting articles comparing it to maritime piracy.