The current hue and cry is for a review of our judicial system, its independence and its efficiency. The first thing that comes to mind among the majority of my colleagues is that we need to institute a "merit" system for the appointment of judges. I totally disagree. I think appointment of judges is just another avenue for perpetuating political favoritism.The traditional method was to permit the election of judges and give the public some input into the judicial system. However, when politics squirmed itself inside the system , judicial "elections" became tainted, partisan and in some cases, political scandals. The usual knee-jerk reaction is for "well-meaning" groups to dump the system and set up a new format for appointing judges.
What happened to our focus on "we the people" or public participation or democratic involvement? If the current system is not working because of corrupt politicians, why penalize the public? If anything, we need even stronger public participation. The public needs to have an open conversation about the dynamics of judicial selection to create the fair and honest system it was intended to be. If the various interest groups (both lay and legal) get what they want, the power and control will remain driven by special interests.
Think about this: you either take responsibility to create the kind of judicial system that works for all of us, or sit back and watch others give you the kind of judicial system that works for them.
14 comments:
Thats very true, but is it any different from our current political system in general? This lack of public participation, this perpetual inertia is the reason why more people vote on American Idol then in the presidential election. What would make anyone think people would take the judiciary more seriously then the executive?
I guess the point could be made that the judiciary has more direct, every day effect on our lives, but we see this inertia at every level. No one votes in county or municipal elections anymore. The system is broken, but how do we fix it?
Sorry for the long delay. Yes, you are quite right; it (judicial inertia) is reflective of our general elections as well and less interesting than our presidential ones. All I can say is that we who see the situation have to be more vocal about it until we reach the rest of the population. I try to speak it up among my colleagues and any personnel I come into contact. I also try to be active in public organizations, agencies, etc. wherever possible. My time is getting limited, but you are just beginning, so don't give up. I know that you will not believe it right now, but continuous conversation does move the apathetic (eventually). Of course, if you have access to media, the results are much quicker. Thanks for your comment and keep me in the loop. enn
This is Eileen Nadelson leaving a comment to the anonymous commenter. If that commenter of anonymity will identify him(her)self, I would be pleased to continue a dialogue to discuss the issues. Many thanks.
The reason for bar screening committees for judicial appointments is to weed out hacks who shouldn't be there. That ain't patronage, that's sound government.Only disgruntled rejects from the screening process complain about the committee.
Hi anonymous -- As you may know, judicial screening committees often consist of bar assn. members and/or govt. appointees. I have no qualms with any individual members of the committee; however, whenever you cede power to a select few, you chip away at the underpinnings of our system of "govt by the people ..." Even worse, we may endanger our judicial independence, a concept which sets us apart in the world and should be guarded fervently.
Earth to Eileen: There is no such thing as "Government by the people" in Kings County - only government by party hacks and bosses. That's how you got on the ballot. The screening committee didn't choose you. Why not? Select power ceded to a few is how it works; that's why you're a judge.
To Anonymous -- sad to hear how cynical you have become about the system. But, you will be glad to know that there really is govt by the people in Brooklyn. To set the record straight, I did not participate with the screening committee -- I was the opposition candidate and was elected by the people of the borough over the party choice. Of course, now you may start railing about the elective system.
No, I'm railing about the fact that there's scores of hacks in the whole court system. The clerks, court attorneys, and various other court staff are nasty and prejudiced against outsiders and dissenters. Some judges too. And absolutely no fairness to those who accuse corruption and misconduct. Nothing to do with elections.
Hi Anonymous -- I understand your frustration and, perhaps, you may have come up against a difficult court member. But, the great majority of our judges and court personnel are fair-minded and committed (to the justice system - not to an institution - oho). I can only offer a good tip; if you are faced with a judge who you may fear is biased, just come well-prepared with your argument. Even a biased judge will find it hard to avoid the facts. Trust me, it will only make you tougher and better respected at the court. It's not about being liked; it's about being listened to.
Were you ever biased?
I would be kidding myself and you if I said that I do not have biases. We are all biased in one way or another. What separates a good judge from a bad one is that you check your biases when making a decision. In that respect, I can boast that I do. Was I ever biased in my determinations? I confidently answer, no.
By the way, Anonymous, I appreciate your comments because they bring me back to my blog, which I tend to neglect when I get busy. I also need to update some of the information - will get to that soon.
Perhaps "biased" was the wrong word. What I meant was, would sympathy come into play? For example, let's assume a given individual has a claim before you which, if it fails, will expose that individual to slam dunk tort actions against her later. And let's assume this person is 80 years old. The claim she has before you (as the judge) has several fishy aspects to it, which give you doubts, but is not totally outlandish. You are aware that the opposing party, if her claim is thrown out, will sue her with a substantial likelihood of success for a considerable amount of money. And, the 80 year old woman is not really reliable in her claim: she has some heavy-duty grudges. But if she loses, that's it for her. Will sympathy for the 80 year-old move you? (be honest now)
First, I have to ask: if this is a civil claim for damages, why isn't there a counterclaim by the opposing party? Next, I don't want to seem that I am skating around your query, but you know that I would need to see all the particulars and facts in the case upon which I will base my decision. Yes, I may have sympathy for the elder citizen, but if the facts do not fall in her favor, I would be constrained to hold against her. My feelings and the law must be kept distinct in my decisions. Does that sound callous? But, I truly believe that justice must be blind. That's my honest answer.
Post a Comment