Roberts nominated...again?
I don't get it. Bush has nominated John Roberts a second time. Now he wants Roberts for Chief Justice to replace Rehnquist, who died on Saturday. Democracy Now had an interview today with The Nation's Bruce Shapiro and Michael Ratner, president of The Center for Constitutional Rights. Shapiro talks about the Rehnquist legacy, how he did more to shape this country's direction than any other person or decision, and how Roberts is an acolyte of Rehnquist.
Ratner speaks about the fight to recuse Roberts--retroactively--from a decision he made concerning the rights of prisoners at Gitmo (he ruled that the Geneva Convention rules had no bearing on them).
Roberts is guilty of a major ethical breach because he met with several top-level members of the administration about the Supreme Court Justice job before hearing arguments and during deliberations of the case. He met with Alberto Gonzales, the architect of US policy concerning the Geneva Convention rules and US prisoners) 6 days before the case was argued and met with the President and several others in the administration during the deliberation period. The case was argued on April 7, and a 2-1 decision which upheld the administration's view was handed down on July 15.
This is all important information, especially in light of the fact that the mainstream media is not reporting on much of the darker side of Rehnquist and Roberts. The interviews are very interesting and worth hearing or reading the transcript.
My question is why is no one talking about the fact that Roberts has little experience to be a Supreme Court Justice, never mind the Chief. This is just another case of Bush strongarming his friends into high places, disregarding completely the fact they have no experience. Why is he not tapping one of the remaining justices to be chief? This is the same pattern of behavior we have come to expect from this administration, but really, after the tragedy in the Gulf Coast should be big enough to make people sit up and take notice that being "a good man," or "a good friend" is simply not enough when it comes to important positions. Listen to Bush's speech as he nominated Roberts, who has only been a judge since 2003.
Enough with the idealogues. Let's get some people in our key government positions that really know about their jobs, that really have some experience. It's bad enough to have an ineffective president that really only cares about his friends in high places. We must have people in positions with massive civic responsibility to have hefty and impressive resumes that pertain to the job they are being asked to do.
Ratner speaks about the fight to recuse Roberts--retroactively--from a decision he made concerning the rights of prisoners at Gitmo (he ruled that the Geneva Convention rules had no bearing on them).
Roberts is guilty of a major ethical breach because he met with several top-level members of the administration about the Supreme Court Justice job before hearing arguments and during deliberations of the case. He met with Alberto Gonzales, the architect of US policy concerning the Geneva Convention rules and US prisoners) 6 days before the case was argued and met with the President and several others in the administration during the deliberation period. The case was argued on April 7, and a 2-1 decision which upheld the administration's view was handed down on July 15.
This is all important information, especially in light of the fact that the mainstream media is not reporting on much of the darker side of Rehnquist and Roberts. The interviews are very interesting and worth hearing or reading the transcript.
My question is why is no one talking about the fact that Roberts has little experience to be a Supreme Court Justice, never mind the Chief. This is just another case of Bush strongarming his friends into high places, disregarding completely the fact they have no experience. Why is he not tapping one of the remaining justices to be chief? This is the same pattern of behavior we have come to expect from this administration, but really, after the tragedy in the Gulf Coast should be big enough to make people sit up and take notice that being "a good man," or "a good friend" is simply not enough when it comes to important positions. Listen to Bush's speech as he nominated Roberts, who has only been a judge since 2003.
Enough with the idealogues. Let's get some people in our key government positions that really know about their jobs, that really have some experience. It's bad enough to have an ineffective president that really only cares about his friends in high places. We must have people in positions with massive civic responsibility to have hefty and impressive resumes that pertain to the job they are being asked to do.
posted by FranCroaker at 2:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home