That’s how Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer describes the background of the man he proposes be appointed to the Second Circuit seat formerly held by Sonia Sotomayor. Raymond Lohiar is currently the Chief of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force in the Southern District of New York, a position he’s held for less than a year, having risen through the ranks.
From the WSJ Law Blog :
From the WSJ Law Blog :
Out of law school, Lohier (Harvard, NYU Law) clerked for U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson, then spent a few years at Cleary Gottlieb before joining the U.S. attorney’s office in 2000. In his time there, Lohier also served as deputy chief and chief of the Narcotics Unit.
With this resume, Schumer offers very high praise:
But the obvious implication of Senator Schumer’s statement is that the Lohiar comes to the nomination with one asset that distinguishes him, his Haitian ancestry. For obvious reasons, Haiti is in vogue these days. That Schumer felt compelled to mention this is almost insulting to Lohiar, who I would suspect thinks the appointment would be wonderful, but would hope to have some greater attributes than his heritage to commend him. This is so quintessential Schumer, and unfortunately, Democrat.
The rest of the story, I am sorry to say, is similarly stereotypical. Raymond Lohiar’s “broad range of experience” is a few years as a Biglaw associate and the rest as a prosecutor. He’s never held the hand of a client as the client makes the most difficult decision of his life. He’s never seen the destruction the law can wreak on a family. He’s never gotten to really know good people who make bad mistakes. These are the things that temper a judge’s view.
Will any politician look beyond the safety and impressiveness of governmental titles when selecting someone who will sit on the bench for the next 40-50 years? But this isn’t just an “any politician” situation; This is a Democratic President with a Democratic almost-super majority in the Senate. And they are building a judiciary that would make any Republican administration proud.
The politics are easy to understand. A smooth ride through the Senate and another hole filled. Diversity trumps philosophy and real breadth of experience. But if the Obama administration can’t find a qualified person whose career includes the recognition that the law can be the problem, the police aren’t always our saviors, that order and safety come at the expense of freedom, who will?
I’m sure that Raymond Lohiar will make a fine judge. Whether he will be the fine judge that we hoped would come from a Democratic administration, with the sensibilities that come from a range of experience that might include some hard time in the trenches as, oh, a criminal defense lawyer, is another thing. It appears that no one, Democrat or Republican, is particularly interested in having those sensibilities reflected in their diverse judiciary.
No, the “hopey, changey thing” isn’t working for me yet either.
“Mr. Lohier is not only a highly qualified candidate for the Second Circuit and a lawyer whose views have been tempered by a broad range of experiences, but, as a proud Haitian American, he is a candidate who would enhance the diversity of the federal bench.”I don’t know Raymond Lohiar personally. I’ve never had a case with him and, frankly, can’t recall any discussion of him by anyone who has. I’m not inclined to question whether he’s a brilliant lawyer, nor am I particularly disturbed that he’s being offered for an appeals court, rather than start at the bottom (so to speak).
But the obvious implication of Senator Schumer’s statement is that the Lohiar comes to the nomination with one asset that distinguishes him, his Haitian ancestry. For obvious reasons, Haiti is in vogue these days. That Schumer felt compelled to mention this is almost insulting to Lohiar, who I would suspect thinks the appointment would be wonderful, but would hope to have some greater attributes than his heritage to commend him. This is so quintessential Schumer, and unfortunately, Democrat.
The rest of the story, I am sorry to say, is similarly stereotypical. Raymond Lohiar’s “broad range of experience” is a few years as a Biglaw associate and the rest as a prosecutor. He’s never held the hand of a client as the client makes the most difficult decision of his life. He’s never seen the destruction the law can wreak on a family. He’s never gotten to really know good people who make bad mistakes. These are the things that temper a judge’s view.
Will any politician look beyond the safety and impressiveness of governmental titles when selecting someone who will sit on the bench for the next 40-50 years? But this isn’t just an “any politician” situation; This is a Democratic President with a Democratic almost-super majority in the Senate. And they are building a judiciary that would make any Republican administration proud.
The politics are easy to understand. A smooth ride through the Senate and another hole filled. Diversity trumps philosophy and real breadth of experience. But if the Obama administration can’t find a qualified person whose career includes the recognition that the law can be the problem, the police aren’t always our saviors, that order and safety come at the expense of freedom, who will?
I’m sure that Raymond Lohiar will make a fine judge. Whether he will be the fine judge that we hoped would come from a Democratic administration, with the sensibilities that come from a range of experience that might include some hard time in the trenches as, oh, a criminal defense lawyer, is another thing. It appears that no one, Democrat or Republican, is particularly interested in having those sensibilities reflected in their diverse judiciary.
No, the “hopey, changey thing” isn’t working for me yet either.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Raymond Lohiar’s “broad range of experience” is a few years as a Biglaw associate and the rest as a prosecutor. He’s never held the hand of a client as the client makes the most difficult decision of his life. He’s never seen the destruction the law can wreak on a family. He’s never gotten to really know good people who make bad mistakes. These are the things that temper a judge’s view.
Perhaps the broad range of experiences that Schumer referred to included some that were outside his time as a lawyer? He may well, for example, have scrapped his way out of poverty and seen real-world what the law can do to friends and relatives. (Or perhaps, he grew up middle-class and didn’t.)
While you may be right in the end, I don’t think the profile that the WSJ article gave is quite enough to draw the conclusions you reached.
Again, I’m prevented by my use of available facts (there is more available about Lohiar than just the WSJ post, if you want to look) to engage in rank favorable speculation. But hey, that’s just me. Some people don’t think as highly of facts. It’s much more fun the speculate.
On a more serious note, obviously every person comes with a full life of experience. Here, I’m speaking to legal experience, and that’s not in issue. He had no secret life as a criminal defense lawyer that no one knows about. Turk, we will never know everything, but if we let speculation prevent us from reliance on facts, then we will never be able to assess those who are being proposed for such a very important position.
Agreed. After many years as a prosecutor, I quickly realized as a criminal defense lawyer the increased wisdom a judge would enjoy if he or she is represented clients charged with criminal misconduct at some point in his or her career.
But an arguably famous New Yorker (no names will be mentioned) recently noted that former criminal defense attorneys “more often than not, [are] the nastiest, hardest-assed, laziest SOB judges around. Not all, but most.” I’ve seen this too.
Why do you think this is so?
My theory is that the easiest way to become appointed or elected after years practicing criminal law is to get along, principles notwithstanding. Prosecutors who call bullshit on truly disgraceful defense attorney misconduct aren’t usually popular. Conversely, defense attorneys who fight hard for their clients are dismissed as true believers. And if they win, they’ll also be called dishonest by prosecutors who could never admit they were outlawyered.
So the attorneys on either side who get nominated/elected are sometimes those who were most popular with the other side, but never particularly principled. And an unprincipled advocate is unlikely to be a principled judge with a true commitment to justice.
I don’t have an answer. Some turn out to be the best judges in the courthouse. Others just seem burned out and angry, lacking the desire to do the job while basking in the power.