I guess the only real question about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is: why didn't he recuse himself on the Hamdan case, when he knew he was being considered for an appointment by Gonzales and Bush, both of whom were named parties in the case?

There is a serious argument that Roberts' inaction created the appearance of impropriety, even if he did nothing wrong, and that at minimum he should have informed defence counsel of the situation so as to allow for a recusal motion to be brought forward.

Senators have apparently taken no interest in this question. They'd rather bloviate.

UPDATE: Matt Welch notes that Senator Russ Feingold actually asked Roberts about this, and about whether civil rights have been too little respected by the Bush administration.

Return to Main Page


Add Comment

Search This Site

Syndicate this blog site

Powered by BlogEasy

Free Blog Hosting