[Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Roberts Court: Scrutinizing Roberts

[Karen Aram]

> 
> So yesterday they had Akhil Amar on TV saying that this would now become the Roberts Court and that although he was a "Democrat", Roberts is a very good man--in other words Vouching and Fronting  for Roberts and the Roberts Court. What a joke and a fraud! These Liberal Legal Elites from YLS and HLS  are more loyal to their Little  Legal Elitist Caste than they are to the American People. Fab.
> 
> FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at law.uiuc.edu, 
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/hijakjustice.html
>      Professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Boyle 
> said today: "In his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts 
> stated that he had 'no recollection' of his membership in the Federalist 
> Society and being on its Steering Committee for Washington, D.C. 
> Nevertheless, a high-level official in the Federalist Society has confirmed 
> Roberts' membership, and it has also been confirmed that all Federalist 
> Society members pay dues. In other words, Roberts lied to Congress, which 
> is a crime in its own right. For that reason alone, Roberts is disqualified 
> to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as an Associate Justice of the U.S. 
> Supreme Court. ... The Senate Judiciary Committee must grill Roberts on all 
> the positions and activities of the Federalist Society and its prominent 
> members before rejecting him, thus exposing before a national audience the 
> pernicious and insidious role that the Federalist Society has played in the 
> American legal profession for the past two decades."
> 
> 
> Francis A. Boyle
> Law Building
> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
> Champaign, IL 61820 USA
> 217-333-7954 (phone)
> 217-244-1478 (fax)
> (personal comments only)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Institute for Public Accuracy <dcinstitute at igc.org> 
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:06 PM
> To: undisclosed-recipients <undisclosed-recipients:;>
> Subject: Scrutinizing Roberts
> 
> Institute for Public Accuracy
> 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
> (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org
> ___________________________________________________
> 
>         PM Thursday, August 18, 2005
> 
>         Law Professors Scrutinize Roberts
>         * Quid Pro Quo?  * Guantanamo Ruling  * Federalist Society
> 
> DAVID LUBAN, luband at law.georgetown.edu, 
> http://www.slate.com/id/2124603/?nav=tap3
>      The Washington Post reports today that "Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was 
> interviewing for a possible Supreme Court nomination with top Bush 
> administration officials at the same time he was presiding over a terrorism 
> case of significant importance to President Bush." 
> [<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601561.html>].
>      Professor of law at Georgetown University, Luban co-authored the 
> recent article "Improper Advances: Talking Dream Jobs With the Judge Out of 
> Court" in which he wrote: "Four days before President Bush nominated John 
> G. Roberts to the Supreme Court on July 19, an appeals court panel of three 
> judges, including Judge Roberts, handed the Bush administration a big 
> victory in a hotly contested challenge to the president's military 
> commissions. The challenge was brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo 
> detainee. President Bush was a defendant in the case because he had 
> personally, in writing, found 'reason to believe' that Hamdan was a 
> terrorist subject to military tribunals. The appeals court upheld the rules 
> the president had authorized for these military commissions, and it 
> rejected Hamdan's human rights claims -- including claims for protection 
> under the Geneva Conventions."
> 
> MICHAEL RATNER, mratner at igc.org, http://www.humanrightsnow.org, 
> http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/18/1331253
>      President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner is 
> co-author of the book "Guantanamo: What the World Should Know." He said 
> today: "The news that potential Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was 
> interviewed for the court seat by Attorney General Gonzales, Vice President 
> Cheney and others while he was deciding a case that went to the heart of 
> the legality of the administration's so-called 'war on terror' should 
> finish off his nomination. The central issue of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was the 
> application of the Geneva Convention to alleged terrorist detainees. The 
> policy was crafted by the very people who were interviewing Roberts for his 
> new job. He would have every reason to make sure his decision did not 
> disagree with the administration: and it did not. The legal standard set 
> forth in the U.S. law is that a judge should remove himself if his 
> 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' No doubt about that -- 
> Roberts should have recused himself once the interviews commenced. His 
> failure to do so should prevent his gaining a high court seat. But it may 
> even raise more serious questions. Was Roberts being offered a bribe for 
> his vote? People may recall that during the Daniel Ellsberg 'Pentagon 
> Papers' trial, Nixon and his aides offered the judge the top FBI position. 
> It was considered as a bribe by many and an impeachable offense. Is there 
> really any difference in the two cases?"
> 
> FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at law.uiuc.edu, 
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/hijakjustice.html
>      Professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Boyle 
> said today: "In his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts 
> stated that he had 'no recollection' of his membership in the Federalist 
> Society and being on its Steering Committee for Washington, D.C. 
> Nevertheless, a high-level official in the Federalist Society has confirmed 
> Roberts' membership, and it has also been confirmed that all Federalist 
> Society members pay dues. In other words, Roberts lied to Congress, which 
> is a crime in its own right. For that reason alone, Roberts is disqualified 
> to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as an Associate Justice of the U.S. 
> Supreme Court. ... The Senate Judiciary Committee must grill Roberts on all 
> the positions and activities of the Federalist Society and its prominent 
> members before rejecting him, thus exposing before a national audience the 
> pernicious and insidious role that the Federalist Society has played in the 
> American legal profession for the past two decades."
> 
> For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
> Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     public at lists.accuracy.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     public-unsubscribe at lists.accuracy.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, including changing
> your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
>     http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public