Patterico's Pontifications

8/17/2005

Stephen Gillers’s Credibility Takes Another Hit

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 1:06 pm



Ed Whelan at Bench Memos does a devastating job of explaining why Gillers’s notion of recusal is absurd — or, in Whelan’s understated language, “dubious.”

Remember, Gillers is one of the main guys the L.A. Times kept going to on the issue of Scalia’s alleged ethical issues last year. Now you’re starting to see why: he’ll say anything to promote the leftist viewpoint, no matter how absurd the logical consequences.

8 Responses to “Stephen Gillers’s Credibility Takes Another Hit”

  1. No, the reason they go to Dean Gillers is that he is one of the top 2-3 authorities on legal ethics in the academic world.

    Whelan’s essay? Not so devastating.

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  2. So can we engineer Ginsburg’s recusal the way he suggested?

    Which judges do you figure currently have to recuse themselves from which cases which are important to the Administration?

    Hey, I asked people like you a question on the other thread about whether you had read Malkin’s book. You didn’t answer it.

    Patterico (a2f3c3)

  3. To begin with, Gillers hasn’t even written his article yet, so it’s a bit premature to rebut his arguments.

    So can we engineer Ginsburg’s recusal the way he suggested?

    They could try to engineer such an attempt with Ginsburg, but if she simply said “It’s inappropriate for us to be having this discussion while you have a high profile case in front of me” that would be that. No recusal, no controversy, no issue.

    Roberts didn’t say that. He actively participated in a series of interviews that took place while the case was being decided.

    Which judges do you figure currently have to recuse themselves from which cases which are important to the Administration?

    Once parties enter into negotiations, where there is the possibility of a quid pro quo, there should be recusal.

    To put it another way: If this were a large, wealthy law firm or corporation that interviewed him for a high-level position, recusal would be a no-brainer.

    There’s a big difference between desiring a position and entering into the interviewing process.

    Regarding Malkin, I read the reviews and what passed for a debate between her and Profs. Muller and Robinson. It reminded me of recent film discussions between Roger Ebert and Rob Schneider. And no, I won’t be seeing Deuce Bigelow II.

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  4. “Negotiations”?

    Patterico (a2f3c3)

  5. Negotiations, talks, discussions, interviews, vetting–we all know what the interview process is about.

    They were expressing interest in him, and he was actively expressing interest in what they had to offer.

    To put it another way: Once the parties are actively discussing the prospect–they let him know they’re interested in him and he lets them know that he’s interested in their offer–it rises above the level of mere speculation or possibilty.

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  6. How many judges do you figure they have talked to for possible positions other than the ones they hold now (including possible Circuit Court of Appeal appointments)?

    How important does the case have to be to the Administration for the candidate to recuse himself? Any case where DoJ is on one side, or takes an amicus position for a side?

    Come on. This is way too unwieldy and it’s just ridiculous. Whelan is absolutely right.

    Patterico (f18435)

  7. There are many fuzzy areas in legal ethics. This looks like one. Reasonable minds can differ as to where to draw the line.

    There IS at least the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest. If this were a private party instead of the government, it would be sanctionable.

    However, your claim that his credibility took a hit because someone from the National Review disagrees with him is absurd on its face.

    And your charge that

    he’ll say anything to promote the leftist viewpoint, no matter how absurd the logical consequences.

    is a thoughtless partisan rant, not serious, credible commentary.

    Geek, Esq. (2d4a7b)

  8. However, your claim that his credibility took a hit because someone from the National Review disagrees with him is absurd on its face.

    That’s your claim. My claim is that his credibility took a hit because Whelan’s arguments make sense.

    And your charge that


    he’ll say anything to promote the leftist viewpoint, no matter how absurd the logical consequences.

    is a thoughtless partisan rant, not serious, credible commentary.

    Right. I should have gone with your level of discourse, and simply called him a “vile, intellectually dishonest scumbucket.”

    Patterico (756436)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1971 secs.