THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.


Thursday, February 12, 2015

It is time for a shift from appointed to elected federal judges, and to get rid of the requirement that judges should be attorneys


Here is the list of currently serving judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Only 8 out of 19 judges are not eligible for a full pension under the so-called Rule 80 (if the age of the judge plus years of the bench equal 80, the judge is entitled to a pension equal to the judge's full salary on retirement).

6 out of 19 judges have "senior status".

9 out 19 judges are over the age of 70, and these judges are the ones who are predominantly assigned to civil rights appeals, and decide them predominantly through the non-precedential "fast and sloppy track", by "summary orders".

The youngest judge of the court is 50.

The next youngest judge is 56.

The next "youngest" 8 judges are 60 to 67.

To me, it is a depressing picture.

It appears that, with all the abundance and even overproduction of lawyers in this country, and with all the abundance of bright and capable attorneys in this countries, in the entire circuit there is no young blood to be able to serve on appellate court, and people's lives absolutely have to be decided by people who may be mentally, physically and by their energy levels, unable to withstand the vigor required of a judge on the bench.

One other issue of big concern is that judges of 70+ and especially 80+ years of age have spent their formative years when racial and gender discrimination was still the norm and when the civil rights movement was only prepared for the breakthroughs of the 60s.

It is scary enough that such people (most of them with a prosecutorial background and a prosecutorial way of thinking) were on the bench for as long as they were on the bench.  Everybody knows that, with age, the bad character traits become ingrained in people and become stronger.

The even scarier part is that specifically the old judges, 75 to 80 years of age, are resolved to decide civil rights appeals in the 2nd Circuit, and they reduce decisions of such cases from the "as of right" de novo review required for such appeals, to a "certiorari" review and unthinking rubber-stamping of whatever the lower court says.  Federal court statistics show that this way 85% of federal appeals and an even higher number of civil rights appeals are decided.

Thus, a question is raised - is there even a point of filing a civil rights lawsuit and a civil rights appeal if judges in federal courts (mostly old judges with a prosecutorial background and mentality) decide from the time such lawsuits are filed that they are "not worthy" of review - and act accordingly?

Moses walked his people around the desert for 40 years to let those born in slavery die out.

Maybe, it is time to replace the old generation of judges with the new blood - and change the appointment system with elections system, to prevent political appointees from getting to the bench to serve political agenda of the president-in-office, the way it was happening until now.

And - there should not be a requirement that the new elected jurist should necessarily be lawyers whose licenses are in the hands of the judiciary, and thus the lawyers are trained to check their independent minds at the door to the legal profession.

The judiciary needs a true young and independent blood.

It is time for judicial reform.

I would also like to point out that you might have a difficulty finding official judicial biographies on the website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, they are pretty well hidden in the depths of the website, which I consider an appearance of impropriety.

People have a right to know who is judging them and do not have to engage in "Easter egg-hunt" through the court's website to get that information.

At this time, to get to judicial biographies, you need to do the following:


  1. Go to the official website of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (the usual procedure);
  2. Go to "about the court" (the usual procedure); and then the "unusual procedure starts:
  3. Hit the "About the Court";
  4. IGNORE the drop-down list and
  5. Hit AGAIN "About the court" while the drop-down list is still open - and this page will open;
  6. Go to the "History" section;
  7. Find the sentence "The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has been home to many notable jurists, some of whom have served as Chief Judge of the court";
  8. Hit the link on "notable jurists".

In my opinion, it does not do the court much credit to hide judicial biographies on the website in such a way that one needs to engage in tricks to find them.

To allow the public to find judicial biographies of the currently serving judges easier, I made this table (below) and interlinked in it the names of judges.

You can read the biography of each currently serving judge of this court by clicking his or her name.




No.
Name of Judge
Date of Birth
Age
Appointed to federal courts and name of president

Years on the bench
Appointed to appellate court and name of president
Years on appellate federal bench
Rule 80 full salary eligible on retirement?
Senior status?

Y/N

1

1940
75
1985, Ronald Reagan
30
1989, George H.W. Bush
26
Yes
Yes, 2006
2
Former chief judge 2006-2013

1944
71
1992, George H.W. Bush

23
1992, George H.W. Bush

23
Yes
No
3

1936
79
1977, Jimmy Carter
38
1993, William Clinton
22
Yes
Yes, 2002
4
1932
83


1994, William Clinton

21
Yes
Yes, 2009
5
1940
75
1979, Jimmy Carter
35
1994, William Clinton

21
Yes
No
6
1938
77
1994, William Clinton
21
1997, William Clinton

18
Yes
No
7
1937
78


1998, William Clinton
17
Yes
Yes, 2008



8
1939
76


1997, William Clinton
18
Yes
Yes, 2009



9
Katzmann, Robert A., Chief judge 2013- present

1953
62


1999, William Clinton
16
No
No
10
1944
71


2001, George W. Bush
14
Yes
Yes, 2009



11
1951
64
1987, Ronald Reagan
28
2002, George W. Bush

13
Yes
No
12
1949
66


2003, George W. Bush

12
No
No
13
1948
67


2003, George W. Bush

12
No
No
14
1959
56


2007, George W. Bush

8
No
No
15
1951
64
2000, William Clinton
15
2009, Barack Obama

6
No
No
16
1954
61
1994, William Clinton
21
2009, Barack Obama
6
Yes
No



17

1965
50


2010, Barack Obama
5
No
No
18
1951
64


2011, Barack Obama

4
No
No

19
1954
61
1997, William Clinton
17
2011
4
No
No

No comments:

Post a Comment