OCR Text |
Show [The Utah S t a t e s m a n X ^ Sept Z 2005m > ROBERTS From page 7 4 that he leaves out what the case really said: "By December 23, 1984, when he had decided to accept the position in the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the judge had a duty to recuse himself from Scott's case." The Scott case does not support Cillers' argument; it undermines it. What Scott says, at most, is that Roberts had no obligation to withdraw from a case in which the government is a party before he was offered and decided to accept the position. That date could not be before the vacancy existed; in fact, it could not be before July 15, when he met Bush for the first time. By that time, the Hamdan case had already been decided. judges are offered other jobs all the time. A Supreme Court justice may become chief justice, or, like Justice Arthur Goldberg, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Appeals court judges may become Cabinet officers. Trial judges may become appellate judges. Cillers' stance would require judges to recuse themselves in any case in which the federal government is a party. Cillers' response is that the Hamdan case was "hotly contested." I have never found any case to be "coldly contested," or even "warmly contested." Do we really want to give the president or attorney general the power to force recusal of one or more judges on a panel simply by asking the judge if he might be interested in a different position that is not yet open but that eventually will be? Should Judge (later Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg have recused herself from any case involving the federal government from the time that Justice Byron White announced his resignation until the time President Bill Clinton announced her appointment? What of Judge (later Justice) Stephen Breyer, who was not nominated until a year after his initial interview with Clinton? The president is not the only person responsible for court appointments. In many states, judicial selection committees present choices to the president. The case law (which Gillers does not cite} has uniformly rejected motions for disqualifying judges from cases in which members of the selection committees are directly involved. Conflict-of-interest charges should not be raised lightly, and historical precedents and case law show the allegations against Roberts are unfounded. Ronald D. Rotunda is a columnist special to the Washington Post and a law professor at George Mason University; he rejoined the faculty in June after working at the Defense Department and was not assigned to the Hamdan case. This article is based on an ethics opinion he wrote at the request of Senate judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa. Employee Pricing on all Bikes 'til end of September! Camelback Trailblazer Reg. $75 SALE $39.99 Child Trailer Reg. $299 SALE $ 1 5 9 •JUSTICES From page 7 4 nomination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had been slated to commence Tuesday, but there will now be a short delay to honor Rehnquist. But there is no reason for the Senate to avoid taking action well in advance of the Supreme Court's new term on Oct. 3. The suggestion by some Democratic senators that they will need more time to review Roberts' credentials now that he is in line to be chief justice rings hollow. Yes, the chief justice wields a great deal of subtle power by virtue of his authority to control arguments and assign the writing of opinions, but it's not as if anyone was taking the confirmation of an associate justice lightly. In their questioning of Roberts, senators should focus special attention on his views on the proper deference that courts owe the executive branch in a time of war. Roberts was on a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that ruled in July that the Bush administration has virtually unchecked power to try anyone it labels an "unlawful combatant" before a military commission that does not live up to the standards of the Geneva Convention. The extent of presidential power in the war on terror is likely to loom large in the Supreme Court docket for years, and it's a subject that Roberts, a former White House lawyer, should be asked to address in his hearings. Meanwhile, the president faces a second opening on the court, although O'Connor could still be on the bench on Oct. 3 if her replacement hasn't been confirmed. Many of the candidates reportedly being considered earlier by the White House are radical conservatives who could trigger the kind of opposition we naven't seen to Roberts. Then there is the president's friend and attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, who is not trusted by social conservatives and should be disqualified, in any case, for encouraging the administration to disregard international law in conducting the war on terror. So, mindful of Bush's other headaches, from Katrina to Iraq, he'd be well served by making another sensible move (is there a surprise candidate up his sleeve?) in replacing O'Connor. This editorial appeared in Tuesday's Los Angeles Times. The ortsman -|clothing+ shoes •equipment j North Is/tain • 435.752.O21 l net 1655 N 200 E. North Logan, Utah • 435-753-7500 www.sportsacademy.com Where USU Students workout, meet new people, and have fun! Join for $30.00 $30.00 a month witk-a friend ' * • • - ' i. r Get 50% off one tanning session^ Now through September 15, 2005 Wrccial CLUB HOURS: MON-THURS 5:00AM - MIDNIGHT • FRI 5:00AM - 9:00PM |