The Dallas Morning News has a good story about the impact of longstanding federal judicial vacancies in Texas. For all the attention that President Trump has received regarding his judicial nominees, relatively few have been confirmed at the district court level. The article gives us a good look into districts where judicial emergencies stemming from longstanding vacancies are, unfortunately, a way of life.
Tag: law and politics
North Carolina federal judgeship remains vacant as Senate sends nominee’s name back to the White House
In July, the White House nominated Thomas Farr for a vacant judgeship in the Eastern District of North Carolina. But this was not just any vacant judgeship — the position has sat empty for twelve years as a result of extreme partisan gamesmanship in the Senate. Farr was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in October, but the full Senate never voted on his nomination. Because no action was taken by year-end, the nomination was returned to the White House.
The President can renominate Farr after the first of the year, and probably will despite Democratic concerns about Farr’s alleged role on voter suppression tactics in the 1990s. If renominated, Farr would face a slightly different Judiciary Committee for a second hearing, with Al Franken gone and replaced, perhaps, by Cory Booker or Kamala Harris.
Whatever transpires with Farr’s nomination, both the Senate and the White House owe it to the people of North Carolina to finally fill this seat. The dozen-year vacancy is both embarrassing and detrimental to the work of the courts.
Romanian senate passes bill limiting judicial independence
Last week, Romania’s lower house passed legislation that would restrict the independence of its judiciary. Now the country’s senate has approved the same bill. As Reuters notes,
The three bills jointly limit magistrates’ independence and set up a special unit to probe crimes committed by magistrates. This makes magistrates the only professional category with a prosecuting unit dedicated to investigating them.
The bill passed on the same day that the European Union decided to begin hearings against Poland for imposing restrictions on its judiciary.
EU exercises “nuclear option” against Poland for threatening judicial independence
This past summer, Poland passed legislation widely understood to limit the independence of its judiciary, and bring it into line with the desires of the ruling PiS (Law and Justice) party. On Wednesday, after months of pleading with the Polish government to reverse course, the European Union invoked Article 7 of its charter, which allows it to discipline member states for a “clear risk of serious breach” of the EU’s core principles — here, respect for the rule of law. Article 7, known as the “nuclear option,” has never been triggered against a member state before.
There is a long process before discipline, if any, is invoked against Poland. But if 22 of 28 member states ultimately conclude that judicial independence is truly threatened, Poland could face EU sanctions or even loss of voting rights.
Romanian parliament passes controversial judicial reforms
Romania’s lower house has passed controversial legislation that will overhaul its justice system — legislation that has been widely criticized as threatening judicial independence and facilitating corruption.
From the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project:
The [Romanian] legislation changes the manner in which magistrates are overseen and chief prosecutors are appointed—under the bill, the president has the right to vet prosecutors.
It also changes the source responsible for compensating for judicial errors from state funds to the judge responsible in sentencing. Experts claim this could possibly affect judges’ biases and tendencies in court rulings.
The lower house approved the bill with 179 out of 269 votes.
The European Commission and thousands of magistrates expressed concern over the legislation, saying it would allow political influence within the judicial system. Thousands of Romanians repeatedly protested against the proposed bill for its alleged power to hinder the fight against corruption. Demonstrations on Sunday drew over 10,000 people to take the streets of Bucharest, Cluj and other major cities.
“Justice, not corruption!” protesters chanted, according to ABC News.
The legislation is still pending in the upper house.
White House withdraws two federal district court nominees
Two of President Trump’s nominees for federal district judgeships have been withdrawn. Brett Talley, a nominee for the bench in Alabama, and Jeff Mateer, nominated for the bench in Texas, will not advance.
Talley drew particular criticism over the last several months for his personal conflicts and clear lack of qualifications. The 36-year-old Justice Department attorney has only practiced law for three years and has never tried a case — a monumental shortcoming for a trial court nominee. Talley also failed to disclose that he was married to a White House lawyer, or that he had previously made controversial statements about death row inmates. (Of less direct importance, but no less head-scratching, was the additional revelation that Talley is a “ghost hunter.”) The ABA rated him “unqualified.”
Separately, Mateer came under fire for his statements on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgender children.
The withdrawals come on the heels of Senator Chuck Grassley’s recommendation that the White House “reconsider” both nominations.
North Carolina judges try to stay neutral on selection fight
I have tracked the ongoing legislative battle in North Carolina over the selection of state judges. The judges themselves are caught in the middle, unable to comment in any direct or meaningful way. This article nicely demonstrates how sitting judges in the state are navigating the treacherous political waters.
Note that judges can — and sometimes do — comment on legislative issues that affect them. But most of the time that commentary goes to judicial salaries and resources, or other relatively apolitical issues affecting the judiciary as a whole. This selection debate is a political morass, and the judges are wise to stay out if they can.
Florida judge faces removal for ethics violations
Palm Beach County judge Dana Santino, who last spring admitted to serious ethics violations during her election campaign last November, is now asking the Florida Supreme Court to reject a recommendation that she be removed from office.
Santino admitted making statements disparaging her opponent’s criminal defense work–statements which were found to impugn the integrity of her opponent and the entire legal profession. After an investigation, the state Judicial Qualifications Commissions recommended that Santino lose her judicial position.
The state supreme court has yet to make a decision, and could still schedule oral arguments on the Commission’s recommendation. Judge Santino remains on the county civil court bench pending resolution of the matter.
Senate Republicans alter blue slip process for two judicial nominees
Back in May, Senate Republicans openly mulled reforming the “blue slip” process to allow a federal judicial nominee to advance to a vote even if one home-state senator opposed the nomination. Now that reform is set to take place for two Court of Appeals nominees, David Stras of Minnesota and Kyle Duncan of Louisiana.
Debates over the blue slip process always feature some of the worst hypocrisy in the Senate, with the party in power (here led by Sen. Charles Grassley) waxing poetic about the Senate’s obligation to give every candidate a fair vote and the opposition party (here led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein) cynically urging that the president’s nominees are all dangerous extremists.
Imagine if other organizations had to rely entirely on outsiders to staff their core positions.
Ohio Justice apologizes but refuses to quit court after Facebook fiasco
Ohio Supreme Court Justice William O’Neill, who is serving on the court while simultaneously running for the governorship as a Democrat, made news again this past weekend with a Facebook post in which he claimed to have 50 lovers over the past century, and described two trysts in detail. The since-deleted post read in part:
“Now that the dogs of war are calling for the head of Senator Al Franken I believe it is time to speak up on behalf of all heterosexual males…. In the last fifty years I was sexually intimate with approximately 50 very attractive females. It ranged from a gorgeous personal secretary to Senator Bob Taft (Senior) who was my first true love and we made passionate love in the hayloft of her parents barn in Gallipolis and ended with a drop dead gorgeous red head who was a senior advisor to Peter Lewis at Progressive Insurance in Cleveland.”
As the kids today like to say, OMG.
Everyone is rightly horrified by this post, with some of the harshest criticism coming from those within O’Neill’s own party, and from the court itself. Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor said in a statement, “I condemn in no uncertain terms Justice O’Neill’s Facebook post. No words can convey my shock. This gross disrespect for women shakes the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.”
O’Neill issued an apology on Facebook on Sunday morning, stating: “There comes a time in everyone’s life when you have to admit you were wrong. It is Sunday morning and i [sic] am preparing to go to church and get right with God.”
Notwithstanding the apology, O’Neill faces calls for him to resign from the court and end his gubernatorial campaign. His campaign manager has already resigned. But O’Neill insists that he will stay on the court, and will only leave the governor’s race if former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief Richard Cordray jumps in.
The people of Ohio deserve much, much better than this.
The Interdependent Third Branch 