Attorney-Senator Bonacic builds his own business with confirmation of DiFiore. Can Preet Bharara handle them all?

Here is the response that I received yesterday from Jessica Cherry, the contact responsible for invitations of witnesses to the confirmation hearing of Janet DiFiore, Governor Cuomo's nominee to the position of New York State Chief Judge.

The claim is that invitations to testify at the hearing that is to decide the important question for all New Yorkers - whether the nominee for the Chief Judge of the court system is to be confirmed to the position, whether she is fit for the job - those invitations were given only to two witnesses.
 
Both witnessess are representatives of bar associations whose business depend on endorsement of judges (while judges regulate their livelihoods).

Both bar associations endorse DiFiore.

Both witnesses who wanted to publicly oppose DiFiore at confirmation hearing, Elena Sassower from the Center of Judicial Accountability and myself, were rejected by Jessica Cherry.


Ms. Cherry claims that, even though the rating by the bar associations of Court of Appeals nominees was published, the scarce time to testify, which was denied to members of general public, witnesses of misconduct of DiFiore's office (and given her many years as a District Attorney, and the way she handles her business, as I learnt in just one case, representing a client as a criminal defense attorney, there must be many victims of her misconduct seeking to testify against her  confirmation), will be dedicated to discussions of how ratings of judicial nominees by bar associations occur.

There are several questions in that regard:

1) why should the public confirmation hearing on such an important issue be so short, only one hour?

2) why cannot additional time be added to accommodate testimony of everybody who wants to orally testify? 

After all, issues of fitness and potential misconduct of a candidate head the entire court system should be important enough to make her confirmation hearing more than a mere formality with theatricals of endorsements by those who stand to get business before DiFiore once she is confirmed based on such endorsements?



3) why only supporters of confirmation are invited and opponents of confirmation are blocked?

4) why only bar associations are invited?



5) why the policy of invitations could not be reversed - NYSBA's ranking policies to be submitted in writing and opponents with actual evidence of DiFiore's misconduct invited to testify in a live-streamed confirmation hearing? 

6) why there can be only two supporting witnesses in an hour-long confirmation hearing?

It appears that attorney and officer of the court (and legislator, which is incompatible) Senator Bonacic has a policy to invite only attorneys who would endorse attorneys for the position that will regulate attorneys' business, which is Senator Bonacic's business, too.

I wonder how much Senator Bonacic and other members of the Committee for the Judiciary are paid, in money, in kind and in promises to them and their friends and family members, in exchange for such a policy.

My position on this subject though remains that if the Senate extended invitations to testify only to supporters of Janet DiFiore, its decision is pre-judged and will be void when made, and especially that the Judiciary Committee of the Senate is headed by a licensed attorney and when 11 out of 23 members of that Committee are licensed attorneys.    

After NY Senator Bonacic opponents to confirmation of DiFiore opportunity to testify, and allowed only bar associations who endorsed DiFiore, to testify, I seriously doubt the validity of the resulting confirmation of Janet DiFiore for the position of NYS Chief Judge, which is clearly pre-judged without any opportunity for a proper public hearing.

I wonder what will the Federal Trade Commission say to  attorney-Senator Bonacic' witness policy for confirmation of judges - regulators of the market of legal services.