It’s a tough place, federal court. How tough? Check out Bennett’s post about pro se litigants before District of Texas Judge David Hittner. Ouch. Nothing warm and fuzzy there. From the lawyers’ perspective, we understand why judges get surly and annoyed when we waste their time, or try to pull something off on them and get caught. But it’s painful to hear a federal judge speak to a citizen with such utter disdain. And it’s painful to hear the same disdain, if not worse, in the citizen’s voice.
While it’s foolhardy for a litigant, particularly a pro se litigant, to deliberately antagonize a judge, it’s worse for a federal judge, a person with life tenure, to demonstrate such a fundamental lack of judicial temperament. This isn’t how a person should be treated, no matter how annoying or misguided he may be.
Which brings us to our kinder, gentler judiciary under our new Democratic President, who was to usher in a period of Hope. The stars were aligned, with a Democratic majority in the Senate, for change, the doctrinaire and dogmatic appointees to the federal bench under our former regime. President Obama was handed a mandate for change, and what has he done with it?
There is, of course, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the former prosecutor and Circuit Judge whose empathetic approach to the law has yet to be fully appreciated. Aside from her, the team roster is a bit bare.
But my fear of the squandered opportunity runs somewhat deeper, and this likely has to do with the fact that I stumble into federal courts from time to time. Would it kill a Democratic President to appoint people to the federal judiciary who shared a healthy respect for humanity, the Constitution, individual freedom and civil rights? Must the breadth of choices be limited to the archly pro-law enforcement to the largely pro-law-enforcement. Must the philosophical reach of potential judges range from those who’ve never seen a 4th Amendment exception they didn’t like to those form whom good faith covers all flaws?
Yes, of course I realize that I’m being silly. The Dems need to show that they aren’t wild-eyed, pointy-headed libs who want to let criminals take over the country, and so out-harsh the Reps with their tough on crime. Bad to worse is the best we can hope for. So there’s what Hope means in the federal judiciary.
But at least judges could be polite about it as they deny suppression and lock defendant’s away. There’s just no reason to be rude. So get to work, President Obama, and start naming names to recreate the federal judiciary in your image. Sure, they will rule no differently than the appointees of your predecessor, but at least they will smile as the mete out the sentence. It’s the best we can hope for.
While it’s foolhardy for a litigant, particularly a pro se litigant, to deliberately antagonize a judge, it’s worse for a federal judge, a person with life tenure, to demonstrate such a fundamental lack of judicial temperament. This isn’t how a person should be treated, no matter how annoying or misguided he may be.
Which brings us to our kinder, gentler judiciary under our new Democratic President, who was to usher in a period of Hope. The stars were aligned, with a Democratic majority in the Senate, for change, the doctrinaire and dogmatic appointees to the federal bench under our former regime. President Obama was handed a mandate for change, and what has he done with it?
There is, of course, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the former prosecutor and Circuit Judge whose empathetic approach to the law has yet to be fully appreciated. Aside from her, the team roster is a bit bare.
President Bush, who was intent on leaving an ideological imprint on the judiciary, made his nominations quickly and pushed hard to have them confirmed. By the end of his first year, according to a report by the liberal group Alliance for Justice, he had nominated 65 federal judges and 28 were confirmed.I realize that President Obama is a very busy fellow, what with a couple of wars and a recession to fix, not to mention the perennial war on health care reform. But he’s got people. You don’t really think the president himself goes around to every potential district judge’s house and meets their kids, do you?
By that measure — and those of the Clinton and Reagan years — Mr. Obama has moved slowly. As of Nov. 4, he had nominated just 26 appellate and district court judges, and only four of them had been confirmed.
But my fear of the squandered opportunity runs somewhat deeper, and this likely has to do with the fact that I stumble into federal courts from time to time. Would it kill a Democratic President to appoint people to the federal judiciary who shared a healthy respect for humanity, the Constitution, individual freedom and civil rights? Must the breadth of choices be limited to the archly pro-law enforcement to the largely pro-law-enforcement. Must the philosophical reach of potential judges range from those who’ve never seen a 4th Amendment exception they didn’t like to those form whom good faith covers all flaws?
Yes, of course I realize that I’m being silly. The Dems need to show that they aren’t wild-eyed, pointy-headed libs who want to let criminals take over the country, and so out-harsh the Reps with their tough on crime. Bad to worse is the best we can hope for. So there’s what Hope means in the federal judiciary.
But at least judges could be polite about it as they deny suppression and lock defendant’s away. There’s just no reason to be rude. So get to work, President Obama, and start naming names to recreate the federal judiciary in your image. Sure, they will rule no differently than the appointees of your predecessor, but at least they will smile as the mete out the sentence. It’s the best we can hope for.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How’s this for hope?
The plaintiff in the video at Bennett’s blog is now under investigation by the Feds over comments he made about the judge in another YouTube video.
I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if the judge demonstrated an iota of tolerance in the first place, leaving the litigants with some small degree of belief that they would not be treated poorly. Sure, the plaintiff’s behavior is outrageous, but he’s a pro se litigant and obviously an angry and arrogant fellow. Even angry, arrogant pro se litigants are entitled to access to the courts. Judges, on the other hand, should be held to a higher standard.
It looks as if the case is about YouTube and DMCA complaints – that alone should have tipped off the judge that sensitive egos were in play.
I’m not in any way defending the judge; I agree that he should have been a lot more professional. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if he is indeed much more courteous with other pro se clients, but when it comes to YouTube and DMCA complaints, things can sometimes get really ugly… on all sides of the issue.
It shouldn’t matter how nasty or ugly the brawl. Handling unhappy and unpleasant people is what judges do. If you want anger, try divorce cases or landlord/tenant court. It’s all in a day’s work.
While waiting to argue a case in the Second Circuit, a pro se party made his oral argument. Did he handle himself well?
His pro se status was noted by the bench when he was done, those waiting to argue, and those in the gallery, gave the gentleman a rather hearty round of applause.
The power of the President to reshape the judiciary is, I suspect, very limited. How much freedom did he really have, at the end of the day, to appoint someone other that Sotomayor. Same with Bush, look what happened when Bush tried to appoint Meyers.
Also, do the gatekeepers, that decide which names to forward to a President, really change from one administration to the next? The names of some of the gatekeepers may change and the party affiliation of suitable candiates changes, but does the perception of who is a suitable name to forward really change.