by TChris

Judicial appointments aren't a sexy campaign issue -- they don't raise emotions like war and health care -- but it's important to bring the Bush administration's record to the attention of voters nonetheless.

First, progressives must take the Kerry campaign slogan to heart and realize that restoring balance to the federal judiciary is at the core of “letting America be America again.” It means discarding the paralyzing presumption that court appointments are so much esoterica, or “inside baseball,” as one dismissive Washingtonian said.

It's time to restore balance to the federal courts, and that requires recognition that many of the judges who ascended to the bench during the Reagan/Bush/Bush years have been anything but moderate.

The lesson for progressives in the rehashing of Reagan’s legacy is that at the dawn of the GOP’s 12-year reign, Reagan’s team created a delivery system for moving right-wing ideologues from classrooms, faculty offices, think tanks, and the temples of commerce onto the bench and then up the judicial food chain. For every extremist like Robert Bork who got bounced, several others made it through without meaningful public scrutiny or Senate criticism.

It's time to take back the courts. Only a Kerry victory can do that.

by TChris

How absurd is this?

North Carolina's Supreme Court ordered a judge Tuesday to restore references to God used when he enters the courtroom and when witnesses swear to tell the truth.

The judge quite reasonably viewed the court system as serving everyone, not just those who believe in God.

Honeycutt told officials in March he was revising the oath because of the increasing number of non-Christians and people of diverse beliefs served by the court system.

Although state law allows a witness to "affirm" that he will tell the truth without swearing an oath to God, juries notice if every witness but one swears an oath that mentions God. That's not fair to the party calling the witness who wants to affirm.

References to God in an oath do not make an oath any more binding or meaningful. A common "one size fits all" oath serves just as well: "Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth?"

Just when you think you've heard it all....A petition has been filed by the Oklahoma Attorney General to remove an Oklahoma judge for "pleasuring himself" on the bench, through the use of a "male enhancement pump." ....Smoking Gun has the petition here.The petition alleges he even used the pump while presiding over a murder trial. [link via Drudge.]

The Judge acknowledges the pump sat under the bench but denies using it and says it was a gag gift. Here's the details:

by TChris

Further proof that the Bush administration cares only about ideology when selecting candidates to serve on the federal judiciary: Thomas B. Griffith, nominated to serve on the federal court of appeals, has been practicing law without a license for the last four years.

This is the second time in Griffith's career that he's practiced without a license. He blamed his law firm's staff for the first snafu ("when in doubt, blame the secretary"), but that doesn't explain his willingness to practice without a license after moving to Utah. Griffith could have overcome the problem by passing the Utah bar exam. He signed up for it but didn't take it.

The administration apparently doesn't check on basic qualifications for the job, beyond ideology, before nominating candidates to the federal bench. The administration no doubt wanted to reward Griffith for serving as lead counsel for the Senate in President Clinton's impeachment trial.

If Griffith couldn't be bothered to clear up his licensing mess, he isn't fit for a lifetime tenure on the federal court. The Senate should decline to confirm him if he doesn't withdraw his name in light of this embarrassing disclosure.

by TChris

While grand juries in most jurisdictions are easily led to indict by the prosecutors who control them, the experience in New York may point the way to welcome reform of the grand jury system. The target of a grand jury investigation in New York has the right to testify. By telling their side of the story and explaining away circumstantial evidence, many targets have been able to avoid indictment.

[I]n Brooklyn alone this year, nearly 14 percent of felony suspects have testified before grand juries investigating their cases this year, and slightly more than half of those cases have ended with no charges, according to the district attorney's office.

It's risky for an accused to talk to anyone but a lawyer before trial, but testifying before a grand jury might be a risk worth taking for someone who can credibly rebut weak or circumstantial evidence. That means grand juries in New York are doing their jobs -- saving the innocent from needless prosecutions -- when given a chance. The New York procedure deserves to be adopted everywhere.

by TChris

It's tough to run for judge in Alabama, where former Chief Justice Roy Moore lost his job on the state's highest court after defying a federal court order to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the courthouse rotunda. Christian conservatives have made him a folk hero, and other judges have to contend with his popularity among voters who believe it's evil to respect the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Justice Jean Brown (described by her campaign manager as a "conservative Baptist Sunday school teacher"), facing reelection, is defending her vote to remove the monument by touting its replacement: a courthouse exhibit that displays the Ten Commandments with other documents, including the Magna Carta. Her TV ads say she's "proud" that the Ten Commandments are back in the courthouse. But that doesn't satisfy her opponent, Tom Parker (Moore's "former legal adviser"):

"Who can Alabama conservatives trust?" one of his commercials asks, showing a picture of Justice Brown. "She removed the Ten Commandments, and insulted us with her politically correct, A.C.L.U.-approved display."

It would be more honest to say: "Vote for me and I promise to defy the law just like Ray Moore." Just as it would be more honest for Justice Brown to stop hiding behind the Ten Commandments and explain that a state has no business endorsing a religion, even if it's the religion preferred by voters.

by TChris

TalkLeft has written (here and here) about the reasons to oppose the nomination of William Haynes to a seat on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. People For the American Way has a statement you can sign urging the Senate to reject Haynes' nomination. It's an easy way to make your voice heard.

by TChris

Another Louisiana judge is in trouble -- this one for being drunk in the courtroom.

A prosecutor's dream judge, District Judge Monty L. Doggett issued arrest warrants when he was too drunk to read them. Deputies once had to carry the drunken judge out of his courtroom.

Judge Doggett's attitude toward his problem didn't help his efforts to retain his robe.

Doggett claimed that since he was re-elected after his alcoholism was made public, his constituents were aware of his problem and did not care.

It wouldn't be surprising if his constituents didn't notice his bad judging, given the other disastrous Louisiana judges that TalkLeft has featured: here and here and here.

by TChris

The NY Times argues that proposed changes in the Model Code of Judicial Conduct would make it easier for judges to follow the lead of Justice Scalia by declining to remove themselves from cases in which they would appear to have a bias, so long as they pronounce themselves to be fair.

The bar panel's newly unveiled proposals for revamping the Model Code of Judicial Conduct would actually weaken the core provision that requires judges to avoid not just actual impropriety in all their activities, but also the appearance of impropriety. Although the new version retains the appearance standard, it waters it down by saying that violations will not "ordinarily" lead to professional discipline unless there are charges of other rule violations. Intentionally or not, as Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont aptly noted last week in a letter to the bar association's president, Dennis Archer, that transforms a crucial ethical mandate into "an ancillary add-on" and significantly diminishes its moral force and deterrence value.

The proposed revisions give judges some other breaks. They would weaken the requirement that judges refrain from deciding cases in which they have an economic interest, often through ownership of stock in one of the corporate parties to a suit.

Even more baffling, the commission has deleted the current instruction to judges to resolve any ambiguity in the Code of Conduct in a way that advances public trust in the judiciary's "integrity, independence and impartiality." Practically and symbolically, that deletion is a real mistake.

President Bush and the Democrats have reached an agreement to end the impasse over Bush's non-controversial judicial nominees:

Breaking a months-long impasse, the White House and Senate Democrats on Tuesday struck a deal allowing Senate confirmation of dozens of President Bush's judicial nominations in exchange for a presidential promise not to bypass the Senate again this year. Under the agreement, Democrats will allow votes on 25 non-controversial appointments to the district and appeals courts. In exchange, Bush agreed not to invoke his constitutional power to make recess appointments while Congress is away, as he has done twice in recent months with judicial nominees. The agreement was reached in a meeting among top Senate Democrats and Republicans as well as Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff.

by TChris

It's hard to believe, but there are still judges who think that only male lawyers should wear pants in court. They don't say it as often as they used to because ... well, when they do, it makes the news. Particularly if the lawyer is pregnant.

Pamela M. Roberson was eight months' pregnant when she appeared before Superior Court Judge Thomas N. Thrasher Sr., 67, in a Santa Ana courtroom. Roberson, 39, of Los Angeles, was dressed in an oversized white shirt and black pants, according to a photo that her husband said showed Roberson shortly after her run-in with the judge.

"Well, your appearance, Miss Roberson," Thrasher told her, according to court transcripts, "leaves a lot to be desired, as far as your clothing is concerned."

Roberson was understandably upset when she left the courtroom. The next day, she had an emergency Caesarean section, delivering her son a month early.

According to the court's spokesperson, Judge Thrasher "felt his remark may have been inappropriate." No kidding. The Robersons haven't seen a promised apology letter, but the spokesperson says it's on the way.

Bush has nominated the Pentagon's top lawyer, William Haynes, to a seat on the ultra-conservative 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Haynes' nomination is now in jeopardy, due to the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal:

Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., said yesterday that senators want to determine what role, if any, the Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, had in establishing "interrogation tactics and techniques which have now been dramatized so negatively to the world." Durbin contended that Haynes had been evasive in response to key, earlier questions.

He also quoted Haynes as having told the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, "'Congress specifically authorized the president not only to use deadly force, but also any lesser force needed, to capture and detain enemy combatants to prevent them from engaging in continued hostilities against the United States.'"

Durbin is calling for a new confirmation hearing for Haynes. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is calling for further investigation into Haynes:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., called yesterday for the Senate Judiciary Committee to summon Haynes and other responsible legal officials at the Department of Defense to testify about legal issues raised by the prisoner-abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Until a hearing is held, further action on Haynes' nomination would be inappropriate, Kennedy wrote to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, the Judiciary Committee chairman. And after a hearing the panel should talk about its favorable report on Haynes' nomination, Kennedy added.

Kennedy submitted another five pages of questions he wants put to Haynes, "related to the prisoner-abuse scandal, linked investigations and related issues." A Republican on the Committee acknowledged the scandal has hurt Haynes' chances for confirmation: