Judge Claire Eagan (N.D. Okla.) is the new Chair, replacing Judge Merrick Garland. Judge Lavenski Smith (8th Circuit) also joins the Committee as a new member.
More on the Executive Committee here.
Over the past three years, his blog has tracked the litany of shocking stories coming out of Chicago area judicial elections — shocking, that is, for anywhere except Cook County. There, it seems, the sulfurous mix of identity politics, voter ignorance, and unscrupulous candidates is a way of life.
This week, the Chicago Sun-Times and Injustice Watch added another depressing data point: “sham” judicial candidates who are placed on the ballot simply to confuse voters and throw the election. Here’s how it is alleged to work: when it appears that a candidate preferred by the city’s Democratic establishment is at risk of losing a judicial race, one or more “sham” candidates will enter the race and be added to the ballot. The “sham” candidates are not real, in the sense that they expend no money on the campaign, conduct no campaign events (and often barely have a campaign website), and don’t seem sincerely interested in a judicial post. But these “sham” candidates do have something in common: names that appeal to voters’ identity politics (which is Chicago, translates mostly to feminine -sounding first names and Irish surnames). The expectation is that voters, who have done no research on the judicial candidates on the ballot, will simply vote for those who sound like Irish-American women. (And there is proof that this expectation plays out in real life.) The “sham” candidates confuse enough voters to draw votes away from the non-establishment candidate, allowing the establishment candidate to prevail.
It’s doesn’t always work. The article, for example, relates how the presence of alleged “sham” candidate Bonnie McGrath in 2016 was not enough to prevent the victory of non-establishment candidate Carol Gallagher. And the alleged “sham” candidates have protested that despite their utter lack of campaign activity, their desire to be judges is sincere. But let’s be honest: the entire process is still shameful — or at least it should be, if the party bosses behind this ruse were capable of shame.
Earlier this year, New York State’s poorly thought-out bail reform law formally went into effect. (New York City courts began implementing it even earlier under the directive of Mayor Bill de Blasio.) The law requires state judges to release criminal defendants without bail except in the most egregious cases. While the law was intended to address perverse effects of existing bail laws on minority communities, it backfired spectacularly from the very start. In December, a woman accused of an anti-Semitic attack on the streets of New York City was released even after admitting her deed; she was involved in another criminal incident less than 24 hours later (and eventually was charged with federal crimes for which bail is required). She was not alone: many stories have identified criminal defendants who were released without bail despite being charged with violent crimes; some of the defendants have even expressed their own surprise at being released. Both de Blasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who initially championed the legislation, have publicly announced that they have had second thoughts.
The law is deeply problematic because it denies state judges a role fundamental to their jobs: the discretion to determine the conditions under which a criminal defendant should be released. Now some judges are speaking out against it themselves. At a recent forum, Bronx Criminal Court Judge George Grasso called for immediate efforts to change the law:
Grasso, a former deputy police commissioner, acknowledged the deep racial and income disparities that informed the push to overhaul the bail law, but said state lawmakers should amend the measure to allow for judicial discretion in setting bail and remanding defendants considered dangerous.
“The scope of removal of judicial discretion on bail matters in this reform package is breathtaking,” Grasso said in prepared remarks. “New York State is the only state in the United States that does not let judges consider ‘dangerousness,’ but instead resorts to twisted logic.”
“We should stop the charade now,” he continued. “It is my opinion that without significant changes, the current legislation will not only be a missed opportunity for long overdue criminal justice reform, but also a significant threat to public safety.”
This is a noteworthy development. Judges typically do not speak publicly on the state of the law, even laws that directly affect the administration of courts and the justice system. Offering a personal opinion on the validity or effectiveness of a law opens a judge to charges of bias or partiality. So it takes a real crisis for judges to feel the need to speak out so publicly.
And Judge Grasso is right. Whatever its original intent, the new law ties the hands of the courts, makes New Yorkers less safe, and reduces public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Northern Ireland is facing a serious shortage of judges on its High Court, and a recent report on the problem sheds some light into why. The government wants to promote only top barristers to the position, eschewing the candidacies of lower-level judges. But it turns out the targeted barristers are not interested:
Among the startling findings of the report obtained by the Irish News is the blunt admission by top lawyers that it simply does not pay to apply for what in the past was regarded as a promotion, with “considerable rewards still available to barristers and solicitors through non-publicly funded work”.
After the close of the impeachment trial of President Trump this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell presented Chief Justice John Roberts with a “golden gavel.” The token is ordinarily presented to Senators who have sat in the presiding chair for 100 hours. Roberts certainly filled that minimal qualification during his many hours presiding over the trial.
I recently took Elizabeth Warren to task for her trial question that crassly challenged the legitimacy of Roberts and the Supreme Court. McConnell’s presentation can be seen as only a slightly more subtle effort to politicize the Chief Justice for partisan gain. True, Roberts did yeoman’s work in presiding over the trial, all the while maintaining his busy day job (which only involves hearing oral arguments, writing opinions, navigating the personalities and needs of his fellow Justices, and managing an entire branch of the federal government). And in a different era, the presentation of the golden gavel might be properly viewed as a sincere token of appreciation. In this deeply partisan environment, however, it primarily exploits the Chief Justice’s participation to court favor with Republicans — a misappropriation of judicial goodwill for partisan gain.
The New England Law Review podcast was gracious enough to interview me about The Interdependent Third Branch, legal scholarship, social media, and other sundry issues. The law review editors do a great job with the podcast, and I recommend all the back episodes.
You can find the link here. Give it a listen!
The American political scene is moving at lightning speed these days, with impeachment proceedings, the Iowa caucuses, the State of the Union, and the government’s response to the coronavirus threat all competing for our attention. But I would be remiss if I failed to note the outrageous question that Senator Elizabeth Warren posed during the impeachment trial last week.
All questions, of course, were required to be written on notecards and passed to Chief Justice Roberts, who read them aloud for response by either the House Managers or the President’s lawyers. Here is what Warren asked:
“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”
Oh, good grief. Roberts has to preside over the trial — it’s right in the Constitution. Calling into question the legitimacy of the entire Supreme Court and the Constitution during a partisan political skirmish was both cheap politics and degrading to the very foundation of American democracy. And she was roundly scolded for the stunt, from observers on all sides of the political spectrum.
This blog has chastised the President and many others for their similar tendencies to attack the courts’ legitimacy when they cannot achieve their political objectives. Let’s add Elizabeth Warren to that list as well. If she truly wants to improve Americans’ faith in government, perhaps she could start by showing appropriate respect for its institutions and design.