Some of Those Pushing John Roberts as Supreme Court Pick Are Pretty Questionable Themselves

Think Progress brings us an example.

Ronald Rotunda is the law professor who argues that Judge John Roberts didn’t do anything wrong when he “heard arguments about the Bush administration’s policy [on military commissions in Guantanamo] as he was discussing a Supreme Court appointment in private conversations with the White House.”

Yesterday we revealed that Rotunda — who is presenting himself as a neutral legal ethicist — was, until very recently, a paid military advisor to the Department of Defense on military commissions.

It turns out Rotunda is one legal ethicist with a history of questionable conduct. From Newsweek, 9/16/1991:

How does a law professor get appointed to the federal bench? Cozying up to the White House can’t hurt. University of Illinois professor Ron Rotunda submitted his name for a spot last spring. He didn’t get the job — but he’s now part of the PR machine for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. A legal ethics expert, he’s phoned reporters, published op-ed pieces and, at the behest of White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, written an essay absolving Thomas of unethical conduct in a controversial case.