The nation will vote who to elect and vest with a tremendous judicial power just the day after tomorrow.
And, the public has a right to know not only how competent and honest a judicial candidate is, but also how healthy that candidate is.
And, that particular issue is usually kept from voters.
Usually, judicial candidates are attorneys.
Usually, other attorneys know of their colleagues' health problems.
But, guess what, judiciary invented gag rules for attorneys to prevent them from informing voters of any information that may lead voters to vote against a certain candidate, so don't hope for attorneys doing anything other than singing praises and giving money to judicial election campaigns. That is allowed by the judiciary as "ethical".
As to appointed judges, the situation is even worse.
With elected judges, at least non-attorneys who know of judicial candidates health problems can speak out and inform voters in time to prevent an individual who has no energy or whose disability may cause problems with judgments, to serve as a judge.
With appointed judgeships, this safety valve is lacking.
For example, a suspended (previously appointed, not elected) Westchester County Judge Elizabeth Shollenberger sued the State of New York claiming disability discrimination against her in court.
Her ailments included not only obesity - which is easily accommodated, and should not be a problem if the judge has enough energy to handle the proceedings - but also "digestive problems" that required her to have frequent use of the restroom, to the point that she reportedly had # 1 and # 2 accidents in the courtroom and once had to pee into a waste basket in court.
I wrote on this blog many times that judges should - as well as other employees in important decision-making positions - routinely undertake drug tests and have results shown to the public, their employer.
Yet, we learn about judges drug and alcohol addictions only when they are arrested for DWIs, often repeatedly, and often escape with their license and pension unscathed, and often remain on the bench with a slap on the wrist, continuing to decide cases possibly under drug and/or alcohol influence.
There is also a problem of old age.
In New York, by State Constitution, a judge is considered too old to serve after 70. Of course, there is an unconstitutional court-devised loophole by which a judge may still "serve" after 70 for 3 consecutive 2-year terms if the judge provides to the Governor a certification that he is physically and mentally healthy to do that. My FOIL requests to the New York State Governor's office as to such certifications were always stalled, by different Governors.
The case of SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Born on March 26, 1930.
Appointed to the court in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, at the age of 51, the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court.
That victory of feminism is, of course, dampened a little when we consider that out of all women lawyers and judges in the United States President Ronald Reagan "happened" to "pick" as a candidate of the first woman judge on that court, quite "coincindentally", of course, the then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist former lover who turned down his marriage proposal and married another.
Appointment of the Chief Justice's former lover as the "first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court" had a distinct bad smell.
Yet, she was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.
And, serving on the court next to her former lover and obviously at his suggestion, was too much of an enticement for Sandra Day O'Connor to turn down.
It is interesting that, when that same Chief Justice Reihnquist was at his death's door - he reportedly suffered from thyroid cancer since October 2004 and died in September of 2005, Justice O'Connor announced her retirement, in July of 2005.
During Rehnquist's suffering from thyroid cancer, no effort was undertaken to replace him on the court - even though "suffering" from cancer, and ultimately, dying from cancer, may mean pain, weakness and total inability to review at least 8,000 petitions filed with the court per year, as well administrative duties of the Chief Justice.
As to Justice O'Connor, apparently, the media that is bold to the point of insulting as to some public officials, somehow lost its moral compass as to Rehnquist - O'Connor affair on the court legitimized, financed and empowered by President Reagan who obliged the Chief Justice by giving him an opportunity to work side by side with his former lover and would-be spouse.
The media started to comment on the affair only after O'Connor, or her representatives, announced her departure from public life due to worsening dementia, and only to comment on that affair as something very "sweet".
And, the bold media source CNN did not pose a question that O'Connor and Rehnquist lied to the public, to the FBI during the routine investigation of the judicial candidate to the U.S. Supreme Court and to the Senate during confirmation hearings, by not disclosing that their relationship was more than just "dating" and "going to a few movies together".
Rehnquist never disclosed that, and O'Connor disclosed it only after Rehnquist died and O'Connor herself resigned from the court.
What is it?
Reihnquiest protected O'Connor and, without that protection she did not feel safe remaining on the court?
Her dementia was starting earlier than it is now announced? She resigned, after all, at 76, well into the age when dementia can have its onset.
So, do we, the public, have a right to know how bad was Chief Justice Rehnquist suffering from thyroid cancer in the last year of his life, whether he had enough energy and judgment left in him to decide death penalty and important civil rights cases, at least 8000 of them in any given year?
When did Justice O'Connor first had the onset of dementia and whether and how it affected her work?
Justices do not like their medical records being delved into, even the President of the United States supposedly needs their consent to look at their medical records.
And, they do not like being "nudged", told that maybe, due to their age and disabilities, it is time to retire.
The present-day Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to reveal health records of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
Scholars point out that, had the public known about Antonin Scalia's health ailments, he could have been forced into retirement.
Revealing his health records now, when he is dead and not protected by privacy, could reveal how many cases should be reviewed anew, due to potential problems with one of the judge's health, energy and judgment.
After all, we expect the judge and not his pool of young law clerks, fresh from law school, lacking life experience, never nominated by the President, never vetted by the FBI and never confirmed by the Senate, to author judicial opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court - which is what is most likely happening, given the math of how many days per year justices work, how many cases they decide per year and how many additional engagements, like giving lecturers, traveling around the country on attorneys' dime and "writing" books (or having them ghost-written for them) and then going on public tours to advertise and sell those books - SCOTUS justices engage in.
The physical impossibility, under the circumstances for Justices of SCOTUS to review and decide by themselves all petitions filed with the court every year, is only compounded with their possible inability to do that due to health problems, disabilities affecting their energy levels and clouding their judgment.
And now, we have the judge who is proclaimed by many a "hero", a "savior of democracy" for remaining on the bench at the ripe old age of 85, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, born March 15, 1933.
There exists a legal concept known as "the best evidence rule".
Nothing other than the very best evidence can persuade the court (and the public) as to certain things.
For example.
You cannot say in court - I have a title to this house.
The best evidence is the actual original deed.
If you do not have it, or cannot prove that you have it through alternative means - like a certified copy from a recording office - you are out of luck. Your word is not "the best evidence" of a deed to a house.
Same with health.
When Ginsburg fell asleep at the State of the Union address (Obama's, by the way) in 2015 - she claimed she was drunk. Which is also a matter of public concern, but Ginsburg was not taken off the bench at that point.
For several years, Ginsburg and those who support and promote her posted articles and videos of her supposed "rigorous training".
She claimed in the media that she has never missed a day of court - despite TWO cancer surgeries (in 1999 and in 2009), with subsequent chemo treatments. That is an obvious lie. It is simply physically not possible.
So - how many days and how many decisions presented as made by Ruth Ginsburg were written by her clerks or by the court without her participation, in how many decisions her vote was falsified?
She miraculously recovered from pancreatic cancer in 2009 while most people are not even get surgeries like that and die, many much younger than Ginsburg.
Did Ginsburg jump the line for an organ transplant?
Shouldn't it be a matter of public concern?
Shouldn't the public be allowed to see her medical records?
Shouldn't she (as well as other judges) show the list of her medications to the public?
Medications mandatory for organ recipients would have been prominently displayed there, potentially raising an issue, if that happened, regarding line-jumping by a powerful public official for public debate, and whether it was appropriate to give an organ to a 76 year old who already had cancer before.
Medications prodding her into a semi-live state when she gives videotaped interviews?
Also, if Ginsburg did receive a pancreas in 2009, she must be screened for cancer now, and must take medication against rejection of the transplanted organ, which can affect her ability and judgment.
Her law clerks have a code of silence, and their position is too lucrative - law firms are snatching SCOTUS judges law clerks offering them exorbitant salaries to have a chance to foot the door and get their clients' cases fit into the 0,1% of the cases picked by the U.S. Supreme Court - by having them call their former employers and ask to for review.
It is common knowledge that former law clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court "coincidentally" are the same people who most often argue cases in front of that court - which means that the court most often picks for review cases argued by their former law clerks.
So, law clerks will not leak this information, but the public should not be held in the dark and held for idiots proclaiming and led to believe that a 85-year-old twice-operated for cancer judge who was caught sleeping at a public event 3 years ago and can hardly keep her head straight when talking to people is somehow vigorous enough to decide 8,000 or more cases a year, including death penalty cases.
We the People are employers of Ruth Ginsburg, and of other judges on the U.S. Supreme Court and on other courts in the country.
We have a right to know whether those who hold in their hands our lives and destinies have not only enough competence and integrity, but also enough energy and sound judgment to do their jobs.
The best evidence of Ruth Ginsburgs and other judges' health and fitness for the bench healthwise are their health records.
They must be public.
I am happy to have come across this article! It is an eye-opener! Thanks.
ReplyDelete