Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conflicts keep Roberts out of appeals
ap on Yahoo ^ | 11/07/05 | AP

Posted on 11/07/2005 6:22:58 PM PST by NormsRevenge

Chief Justice John Roberts bowed out of a major war powers case on Monday because he had handled it as an appeals court judge. Without Roberts, the Supreme Court could deadlock 4-4.

Roberts has had other recusals as well in his first weeks on the court.

Justices do not usually explain why they are withdrawing from a case, although Roberts' conflicts seem to stem from his participation in cases at the appeals court in Washington, from ties to his former law firm and from his financial holdings.

_He did not participate on Monday when the court refused to take up an appeal from Golden Pacific Bancorp., the holding company for a bank that was liquidated in 1985 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

_Last week he acknowledged making a mistake in taking part in the early stages of a patent infringement appeal. He will not sit when the court hears arguments next year from Burlington, N.C.-based Laboratory Corp., which is represented by Roberts' former law firm, Hogan & Hartson.

_He did not participate in October arguments in a case that involves disputes between school districts and parents of children with special education needs. Lawyers from his old law firm are representing the Maryland school district in the appeal.

_He has declined to participate in a variety of appeals, which were turned down without comment, including cases involving Microsoft Corp., Nokia Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: appeals; conflicts; gwot; roberts

1 posted on 11/07/2005 6:22:59 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

OH BOY! What do y'all think about this?


2 posted on 11/07/2005 6:24:56 PM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas
OH BOY! What do y'all think about this?

He has scruples?

3 posted on 11/07/2005 6:27:30 PM PST by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

As time goes by, this will happen less and less.


4 posted on 11/07/2005 6:27:43 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Eeeehhh. What's up?


5 posted on 11/07/2005 6:28:16 PM PST by Bahbah (Free Scooter; Tony Schaffer for the US Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

"What do y'all think about this?"

I'll tell you what I think, I think Justice Ginsburg needs to recuse herself from any and all cases to which the ACLU is a party. And I'd like to know a lot more about that angle too, whether she does or not, and if not why not. Si no, por que no? As we say in La Nueva America.


6 posted on 11/07/2005 6:29:44 PM PST by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
Roberts is quickly turning into another Souter.

Notice that the arch-traitor Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not recuse herself from this trial even though she had an exceedingly lengthy relationship with the ACLU, which is involved.

If Roberts were honest, he'd order Bader Ginsburg OUT first.

7 posted on 11/07/2005 6:31:28 PM PST by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I can see no reason in the world why he should recuse himself from the final ruling. He's a judge, a Supreme Court Justice now, and this is a matter of law; not some Dipweed County beauty contest.


8 posted on 11/07/2005 6:32:50 PM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Simon, like they say over here at the barrio....I concur! It does get tiring seeing the pubs always recusing themselves from crucial cases, while the RATS fight tooth and nail before they are dragged out!
9 posted on 11/07/2005 6:35:38 PM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: zook

That's what I thought too! OH BOY! Here we go again!


10 posted on 11/07/2005 6:36:52 PM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
Eeeehhh. What's up?

In general, he is recusing himself from cases where he rendered the opinion below. His position is known and expressed already - he isn't impartial anymore.

He was on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia - a venue that attracts cases against the executive branch.

I read his opinion for the Hamdan case. During his hearings, he was questioned about his paricipation a the Circuit Court level, seeing as how he'd been interviewed for a position on the SCOTUS.

FEINGOLD: Last month, when I was home in Wisconsin, a constituent came up and said to me that he believed the D.C. Circuit decision in the Hamdan case, a different case, which you joined in, to uphold the government's ability to try a Guantanamo Bay detainee by military commission, should disqualify you from being on the Supreme Court.

Feingold asked questions on the second and third day of hearings, regarding Roberts' participation in the Hamdan case.
11 posted on 11/07/2005 6:54:15 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I guess he will be refunding the taxpayers some of his salary as well...... No work, no pay. Seems fair.

I won`t hold my breath for that one.

This guy better grow a pair and start doing his job. Ginsberg doesn`t sit out cases the ACLU is involved in.


12 posted on 11/07/2005 6:54:55 PM PST by Peace will be here soon ((Liberal definition of looting: "Self-help Humanitarian Aid."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah

Hells bells, if he upheld something at a lower level, get involved and uphold it again! WTH does he thing he got appointed for anyway! Sheesh!


13 posted on 11/07/2005 6:57:37 PM PST by Enterprise (The modern Democrat Party - a toxic stew of mental illness, cultism, and organized crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

Nothing at all.


14 posted on 11/07/2005 7:03:23 PM PST by Tax-chick (I'm not being paid enough to worry about all this stuff ... so I don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas
OH BOY! What do y'all think about this?

It is ROBERTS decision that is being debated. He has no business deciding if he was correct in his previous decision.
15 posted on 11/07/2005 7:08:16 PM PST by msnimje ("People for the American Way have issued a Fatwah against Alito" --- John Cornyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I have read the preceding posts and I agree with those who do not understand why he would recuse himself.

It does not matter if he ruled previously, he is not the Chief Justice and it is encumbrant upon him to fulfill his role and render opinions, either in the majority or in the minority.

But rendering opinions is his job, not recusing himself!
16 posted on 11/07/2005 7:10:42 PM PST by Prost1 (If the dems want to unite the country then they should join in our federal democracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Chief Justice John Roberts bowed out of a major war powers case on Monday because he had handled it as an appeals court judge. Without Roberts, the Supreme Court could deadlock 4-4.
____________________________________________________

Well actually, as I see it:

1. Roberts decided and I believe wrote the opinion at the DC Appeals Court.

2. If the Justices split 4-4, then Roberts' opinion stays in force.

3. Thus it seems to me this is like every other case, if all the Justices but Roberts split, he cast the tie breaking vote.

4. The only difference this time is he cast the tie breaking vote before he was on the Court and before this issue came before the court.


17 posted on 11/07/2005 7:14:13 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Guess I owe Coulter an apology now.


18 posted on 11/07/2005 7:14:20 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Good point.

Precedent sucks sometimes and then sometimes tastes oh so sweet, huh?


19 posted on 11/07/2005 7:16:06 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JLS

4-4 means it's precedent for no other district. Other districts can continue to wildcat.


20 posted on 11/07/2005 7:17:11 PM PST by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Many comments in this thread as kind of ridiculous. Justice Roberts is recusing himself from precisely those cases that U.S. Title 28, Section 455 says he shall recuse himself from (e.g., when he issued a former ruling on the case or when a lawyer with whom he practiced law served as a lawyer in the case during that time).
21 posted on 11/07/2005 7:18:01 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
He's no longer impartial... he's already rendered judgment since he already ruled on this particular case. If anyone here believes in the Constitution as it was written, Chief Justice Roberts clearly has to recuse himself.
22 posted on 11/07/2005 7:19:31 PM PST by Namyak (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
That should say "many comments in this thread are kind of ridiculous" - actually, scratch the "kind of" (I read some more of them).
23 posted on 11/07/2005 7:20:06 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

You know I've long wondered what would happen if a justice challenged the constitutionality of Article 28, Section 455. Wouldn't all the judges have to recuse themselves?? :)


24 posted on 11/07/2005 7:25:35 PM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Justice Ginsburg needs to recuse herself from any and all cases to which the ACLU is a party

Do you think John Roberts should recuse himself from every case to which a Republican is a party?
25 posted on 11/07/2005 7:25:45 PM PST by msnimje ("People for the American Way have issued a Fatwah against Alito" --- John Cornyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
If Roberts were honest, he'd order Bader Ginsburg OUT

Order ? Under what provision ?
26 posted on 11/07/2005 7:36:06 PM PST by pyx (Rule #1. The LEFT lies. Rule #2. See Rule #1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
he'd [Roberts] order Bader Ginsburg OUT

Ruth Bader Ginsberg may well be a piece of communist filth, but she does not report to C.J. Roberts. That's not how the Supreme Court works.
27 posted on 11/07/2005 7:40:38 PM PST by pyx (Rule #1. The LEFT lies. Rule #2. See Rule #1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone

But then it comes back to the full court from another district? Or must Roberts recuse from those cases?


28 posted on 11/07/2005 8:52:33 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pyx
Roberts, as Chief Justice, can create such a rule.

One of the weapons he has to enforce such orders is the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court. He can assign parking privileges, rooms, area for staff, heat, air conditioning, water, restroom privileges, etc. These are not the only methods available.

29 posted on 11/08/2005 11:35:10 AM PST by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson