United States District Court Judge Nancy Gertner wrote a book.  No, it’s not out yet.  It’s not on the bestseller list.  But already, it’s controversial.  The book is entitled “In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate.”  Oh my God, she’s a woman.  She was an advocate.  She has . . . beliefs.

You’ve got to be kidding, right?  Was there anyone (who cares) who was unaware of Judge Gertner’s legal career before being appointed to the bench?  Did you think federal judges popped out of the womb with a robe on?

Nobody got all bent out shape when Justices Thomas and Scalia wrote books describing their former lives and philosophies.  Nor should they have.  People don’t find their way onto a federal bench for being mindless, unaccomplished drones.  They came from somewhere and did something.  All of them.

Nancy Gertner was a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer.  While I never had the honor of working with her, friends have and tell me that she was a brilliant lawyer.  Is this a problem?  To some, apparently so.

“It disturbs me when judges who are supposed to be fair and impartial are expressing their own personal background and beliefs in matters that could be connected to future problems or cases that come before them in court,’’ said Robert A. Barton, a retired Massachusetts state judge.

Judge Gertner’s former partner, Harvey Silverglate, responds to the criticism:

“Judges, like other human beings, have predispositions,’’ he said. “Some are called liberals. Some are called conservatives. To hide these facts doesn’t make them untrue. And so by encouraging judges to talk more, when you have a case before a judge, you have a better idea of what that judge might be interested in and what you might have to say in order to overcome that judge’s predispositions.’’

Harvey nails it.  Barton’s complaint isn’t that judges have biases, but that they admit to them.  Obviously, a judge’s skull doesn’t turn into a big, empty hole when they slip into the robe.  They have the accumulated mass of experience and knowledge gained over their life and legal career.  This doesn’t preclude them from being fair and impartial, to the extent such concepts can actually exist.  If anything, this is about transparency, admitting the influences that the judge brought to the job and acknowledging to the advocates who will appear before them that these are the hurdles they will need to surmount to prevail.

There has long been a certain fiction that we impose on judges.  We want to see them as intellectually virginal, a clean slate, equally open to all ideas and arguments as if they’ve never had a thought in their head before we walked into the well.  This isn’t real.  This was never the case, and only the most naive lawyer would believe such an absurd notion.

Having thoughts doesn’t make one a bad judge.  Indeed, it is by no means a basis to assume that a particular judge is inclined to rule a particular way.  Take Judge John Gleeson in the Eastern District of New York, whose career path was through the United States Attorneys office in the Southern District and took him over the bridge.  He’s been one of the boldest, open minded judges around, and any of the assumed bias one would have projected on him would be absolutely dead wrong.

The bottom line is that the more we know about a judge, the better we understand the thoughts and influences that go into the decision-maker’s reasoning and vision, the better we can tailor our arguments and express our positions.  If anything, I want them all to write books.  Tell me everything, Your Honor.  Everything.