In the old days, one might expect to have a glimmer of understanding about what your judge might be like based upon which president appointed him or her. Now that we have the Minister of Change in the White House, having gotten the Sotomayor appointment behind him, lesser seats are being filled.
From the BLT :
Jane Stranch, partner at Nashville’s Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, has been tapped to fill a spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, while Judge Thomas Vanaskie of the Middle District of Pennsylvania has been picked for the Third Circuit.Bold. Fearless. Fighters for the Constitution. A labor lawyer and a current judge who made his bones in Scranton in the office next to a senator’s father. I can’t wait for this “change” stuff to kick in. Anytime now. Any time. Whenever you’re ready, Mr. President.
According to the White House announcement, Stranch, a labor lawyer, graduated from Vanderbilt University School of Law in 1975 and is known for her work on complex ERISA litigation. The 55-year-old Vanaskie, meanwhile, was appointed to his current post in 1994, and was chief judge from 1996 through 2006. As a young lawyer, he practiced in the Scranton office of Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman alongside future governor Robert Casey, Sr., the father of Sen. Robert Casey, Jr. (D-Pa.).
The face of the federal judiciary hasn’t change much in, well forever. It’s not that most of them aren’t excellent lawyers within their practice area, but that they will have a great impact as judges in a much broader pond. Criminal cases come immediately to mind for me. And so I ask, what the heck do they know about criminal law? What do they think about it? What do they know about the people who will appear before them as defendants? What do they think about the honesty and integrity of the police, the prosecutors, the system?
My experience has been that most lawyers whose career has been firmly rooted in the civil side of law have no greater knowledge than the general public about criminal law. They hold dear the same erroneous assumptions and prejudices, that by and large the police tell the truth; that most defendants are guilty, at least of something; that if the Constitution was supposed to mean what it says, judges before them wouldn’t have crafted the million exceptions to the rule; that law and order are the same things.
They tend to be quite conservative in their view of civil rights and personal freedom, as they are heavily vested in the system and enjoy the mindset of the successful lawyer. Don’t get too close to my Mercedes! They don’t mean to be uncaring or naive, but they truly believe that the status quo is the way it’s supposed to be.
Many thought that a Barack Obama presidency might bring change to the status quo. I never thought so, at least when it comes to the federal bench. When Norm told me that he might be up for a judgeship, I was, to be blunt, shocked. That would have been one incredibly bold move. And of course, it wasn’t to be.
It’s not that there aren’t some excellent judges on the federal bench, or that all judges whose careers were spent on the civil side are ignorant or uncaring about criminal cases and constitutional rights. It’s that the only people to be deemed safe enough for an appointment who have had experience in criminal law are prosecutors, with Massachusetts Judge Nancy Gertner being the exception that proves the rule. She’s quite a stand-out as a judge, and as it happens she was a criminal defense lawyer.
In my home districts, SDNY and EDNY, we have a number of judges whose legal career journey went from the United States Attorney’s office to the Courthouse. Some moved physically, but their heart remained behind. Others try very hard to be fair, but really lack the breadth of experience to comprehend what fairness means. One, John Gleeson, has been a standout, making some very bold decisions and demonstrating a willingness to use his bench to challenge the status quo when he believes it to be wrong.
Perhaps President Obama has yet to get his sea legs. Perhaps he believes his capital is better spent at passing whatever plans he feels will establish him as an agent of change. I dunno, and this isn’t a post about whether his agenda is good, bad or otherwise, so let’s not get into that. But if Bill Clinton is any measure, the expectation of a shift in the federal judiciary has no legs. Sure, the neocons label any judge appointed by a Democratic President “liberal”, proving that knee-jerk vapidity is alive and well, both in Washington and in the hearts and minds of true-believers. But today’s idea of a “liberal” judge covers Richard Nixon’s appointments in the 60s.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. You guys can fight over your labels all you want. Wake me up when the change happens.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Among the places where a President has long-standing influence — that will be felt years and perhaps decades after he’s left office — are the Federal judicial appointments.
I’m not seeing the change, either. Maybe his appointments are largely or exclusively Democrats, rather than Republicans.
Small change; spare change; pocket change.
You and SWMBO can cue up the Pete Townshend. I’ll just play some Stills.
Ah yes, Judge Gleeson. Wasn’t he the one that held the method of electing NYS Supreme Court Justices was unconstitutional, got upheld by the second circuit, and then the Supremes reversed?
That was a very bold and insightful ruling. And I suppose it shows that not all prosecutors are just toadies for the powers that be. Not all.
Being a judge could be an interesting job if the kind of reasoning Judge Gleeson so often displays was an accepted thing. I have the feeling he is probably branded as a “maverick” or something, though.
The courts are supposed to be the place where raw power yields to reason. Otherwise why have them at all?
One and the same, and that wasn’t the only decision of interest. He’s proven to be quite a solid judge, amazingly fair and open-minded, and wonderfully independent. The EDNY is known for having either maverick judges or lemmings. The luck of the wheel very much influences outcome.
It seems we have a problem in all states and it lead right up to the federal level.
I had the misfortune of being involved in a civil suit with a long time friend of then Gov Vilsack. He inappropriately overreached by intervening making it very clear who
was to win. The results were predictable: dam the law, corporation documents, Uniform Business Code, and common sense. What should have been easily won was not because the fix was in. Oh did I mention that Vilsack appointed the Judge Maryann Brown. The Iowa Appeals Court put their rubber stamp on it.
If you read the decision you would have thought it correct, but failed to mention I had been denied due process by denying a jury trial, that there had been numerous occassion Judge Brown abused her discretion by not taking up blatant violations, but that was the only way to reach the desired decision.
No wonder everyone looks at the judicial system at all levels with a jaundiced eye.