Professor Rotunda writes Washington Post op-ed piece on Roberts nomination
Professor Ronald Rotunda is author of a Washington Post op-ed piece concerning allegations of ethics problems for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Critics charge that Roberts should have disqualified himself from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case he helped decide earlier this year while serving as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Professor Rotunda disagrees.
A Shaky Ethics Charge, The Washington Post, September 6, 2005. By Ronald D. Rotunda.
"The Scott case does not support Gillers's 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. Gillers's stance would require judges to recuse themselves in any case in which the federal government is a party."
Click to read the op-ed.