Roberts: Conflict of Interest?

by TChris

Senators Charles Schumer and Russ Feingold would like John Roberts to explain his decision to sit on the panel considering the Hamdan appeal. The United States, after all, was a party to that appeal, and Judge Roberts was being interviewed for a presidential appointment to the Supreme Court while the appeal was pending. In fact, his nomination was announced just a few days after the Hamdan decision was released.

“Why did you believe it was appropriate to continue participating in the Hamdan case while being interviewed for a vacancy on the Supreme Court?” the Democratic senators asked in the letter. The senators said Roberts' answers will determine whether they bring the issue up at his confirmation hearings beginning Sept. 6.

Pointing out that Judge Roberts recused himself from a case involving the American Bar Association, which rated his fitness for a position on the Supreme Court, the senators thought it was “clear that you have long understood the ethical issues raised by continuing to work on a case in which a party is considering you for another position.”

< No Appeal From Dismissal of New Ipswich 'Trespass' Charges | Pushing Back Against Extremism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Roberts: Conflict of Interest? (none / 0) (#1)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Can't argue with this at all. I too would like to hear an explanation from Mr. Roberts. But while we're asking people to explain things, I'd also like to here Schumer's explanation for why he helped delay confirmation of a federal judge to affect the decision of a federal case involving affirmative action.

    Re: Roberts: Conflict of Interest? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    This issue is the crux of what the left should be focusing on in attempts to knock Roberts out. Focusing on his stance or presumed stance on the issues is a dead-end, even though it's important to expose that stuff. This issue makes the undocumented nanny seem innocent. Some people have been pushing this story for a long time, like The NewStandard; the Dems are just playing catch-up, and very slowly. This story is about Roberts's impropriety, and this one is about the Bush admin's possible culpability.