Roberts' ethics problem
It looks like nominee John Roberts may be facing his worst problem yet. Given that disparaging comments towards women isn't offensive enough to inspire opposition, perhaps an ethics violation will violate the sensibilities of our elected representatives.
Judd Legum writes:
"In April, Judge John Roberts 'heard arguments about the Bush administrationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s [Guantanamo Bay] policy as he was discussing a Supreme Court appointment in private conversations with the White House.' On July 15, 'when Judge Roberts met with President Bush for the job-clinching interview, he joined a ruling in favor of the defendants, who included Mr. Bush.' The White House claims Roberts didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do anything wrong. Bush spokesman Steve Schmitt said Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthere was no conflict whatsoever.'"No conflict whatsoever. Firmly said Mr. Schmitt! Too bad it's a pathetic lie. Let's give Mr. Schmitt a scenario and say...it...real...slow so he can git it: Mr. Schmitt gets in a car accident. Mr. Schmitt wasn't at fault. Mr. Schmitt sues other driver, we'll call him Mr. Rippington, to cover medical expenses for his wife who will never walk again. The judge in the case is hoping to land a prestigious job in Mr. Rippington's PR firm. Rippington wins and Mr. Schmitt and his wife must cover their own costs.
But back to Roberts. He knew it was a conflict of interest. As Judd points out further down, he'd recused himself in a similar situation years earlier. I guess ensuring the unfair trials of Gitmo detainees was more important than being a good ethical American. (ThinkProgress)