PDaddy wrote:
Latham & Watkins represented Bybee to the tune of $3.4M. He accepted those services pro bono after having heard cases involving Latham attorneys. He recused himself from all future Latham cases indefinitely, but only after having been called out.
It was also widely suspected that he signed the torture memos (supporting waterboarding) to ensure his confirmation into the ninth circuit, which reeks of quid pro quo for Bush's resubmission of his candidacy for the Ninth Circuit.
So...not only does he write a faulty memo (based on flawed research by UC Berkeley's John Yoo) that enables the Bush Administration to engage in egregious human rights violations, he does it as a trade off for his seat on the Ninth Circuit. Then he allows a firm that had cases in his court to provide him with $3.4M in pro bono services, recusing himself from future cases involving the firm only after he got called out.
http://www.change.org/petitions/discipl ... mo-lawyers
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2009/02/17/ ... ture-memos
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/torture_ ... /index.php
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/17/jud ... s-mahoney/
Note for future readers: The posts between PDaddy and this one might seem nonsensical because they accused him out for not posting any useful information. The edited portion above is what he added after these critiques.
Here's what you're saying:
1. Bybee signed off on the torture memo
2. "It was... widely suspected" he did it to ensure his confirmation in the Ninth Circuit
3. Latham and Watkins gave him 3.4 million in pro bono defense and you allege that Bybee "recus[ed] himself from future cases involving hte firm only after he got called out"
Here's the problems with what you're saying.
1. Right. Everybody knows. That's why there was an ethics investigation which decided that no further action should be taken. No governmental agency or bar has taken action against Bybee or Yoo. I'll also point out that Harold Koh secretly signed off on drone killings of American citizens abroad. Democratic appointees have signed off on the PRISM taps. There's a bunch of crazy stuff that goes on that a lot of people find unsavory. The main reason Yoo and Bybee were excoriated was because the political climate was right for it. If the Koh memo had been written under the Bush administration and uncovered in 2007, then Harold Koh would be the one that liberals were after.
Regardless of what you think of the torture memo, you can recognize that Bybee had a job to do, he did it, and disagreeing with him is a matter of politics and not ethics.
2. It's widely suspected? Really? By who? Your sources on the subject, like Daily KOs, a Change.org petition, or Velvet Revolution? (Note that none of those sources ACTUALLY say it, but I am trying to draw attention to the fact that you're citing a seriously slanted set of sources.) If you're going to levy that accusation, then source it. Furthermore, even if you had neutral sources who suspect it, suspicion is a pretty low bar. I suspect that Serena Williams is on steroids of some sort. And I guarantee you my inferences for it are a lot stronger than what people have supporting this supposed suspicion on Bybee. But that doesn't get anybody anywhere.
3. This is the only real accusation that merits serious attention. The only support you have for this is a WSJ article saying that Bybee did accept pro bono services from LW. This is pretty common knowledge. But he is also recusing himself and I have never heard that he had to be "called out" to do it. Do you have any source for that? I mean, even Think Progress said, "To his credit, Bybee is recusing himself from cases that Latham & Watkins participates in." (Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/1 ... ?mobile=nc) I mean, that's Think Progress - any where they are giving credit to Bybee, probably isn't a bone you should pick with him. After extensive Googling, the only thing related to this that I can find some no-name blogger on blogspot complaining about is that Bybee should state now that he should recuse himself from all future LW cases. (Even then the blogger admits there is no actual judicial ethics violation. Source:
http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2011/11/in ... bybee.html - And note again that this blogger seems about as credible as as the doomsday crier on the corner of the street.) Now, to be fair, I'm sure you could have mis-remembered the parts about Bybee's recusal. But unless you have some source you can point to about Point 3, I don't think your critique holds any weight at all.
EDIT: And I will add this. Not wanting to clerk for a judge because of their political reputation is completely fine. For some people that matters. And really, if you clerk for Judge Bybee, you can guarantee that you'll have a difficult time applying for professorships at most law schools due to liberal bias. (You'd be fine at most conservative ones.) So that's a totally valid concern. But all of the unsupported accusations about Judge Bybee being unethical should not deter anyone from applying to him, mainly because they aren't true. I'll reinforce what others have said and I have also heard: the quality of life, mentoring, and tutoring in a Bybee clerkship is phenomenal.
