"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.

Friday, March 18, 2016

The #BraveDefendersOfHumanRightsOverseas series continues

I wrote on this blog back in January this year about the tendency of the legal establishment to bravely defend violations of human rights overseas, while pretending selective blindness to the very same thing happening at home.

As yet another example of such bravery, a prominent legal blog posted an article defending Freedom of Speech, journalists and civil rights defenders - in Turkey.

It is good to support the rule of law in Turkey, Pakistan or other countries.

But - when we are doing that, we should practice what we preach, and we don't.

That people are viciously deprived of human rights in America for exposing governmental misconduct, examples of which regularly appear in the media - and I regularly publish such information - is not a prominent feature on that same legal blog.

I am not alone in this fight.  Other attorneys and members of the public punished for criticizing judges are going public with their stories.

See, for example, an excellent piece by Indiana attorney Paul Ogden about the striking resemblance of Rule 8.2 punishing attorneys for "untruthful criticism" of judges (found untruthful even when truth of the evidence is irrebuttably proven, see, for example, the #ChristineMire's case, I blogged about it here, here, and here) with the infamous Sedition Act.

That is the United States of America, ladies and gentlemen.

Even if it feels worse than Pakistan or Turkey where Freedom of Speech about judicial misconduct is concerned.

And I do not see prominent legal blogs spending any significant time on this topic.  As a means self-preservation, I understand.

Shouldn't we recall one very simply saying - "charity begins at home"?

Let's clean our own home.  

Because supporting freedom of speech rights of journalists and civil rights activists in Turkey, while keeping your mouth shut as to the same violations for fear of your livelihood, your own cozy lifestile and your own law licenses appears like just a little bit of hypocrisy to me.


No comments:

Post a Comment