Many years ago, we were sent out on a civil jury trial to a Part* that made my co-counsel mutter, “oh fuck, no.”  The judge, whose name eludes me now,*** apparently had two issues. First, she was a dolt. Second, she couldn’t speak adequate English. This would have been hilarious, had it not been for the fact that real people’s lives were involved.

Daily during trial, the judge would say something that would evoke, from all counsel on all sides, a response of “what?” The judge would repeat herself, somewhat testily. So again, counsel would ask “what?” The third time she would start screaming at everyone, which reinforced the point that speaking loudly in a foreign language does not make it more comprehensible. The judge was female and Hispanic. This didn’t make trial any easier.

Afterward, I asked a buddy who was on the party screening committee how it was possible they ran a judge who couldn’t speak English, not to mention was a dolt (did I mention that?). He explained that they needed a judge with her immutable attributes to round out their dedication to diversity, and she was the only one who licked enough envelopes at the local Democratic Club for the job. Yes, that is the primary qualification to be nominated, and whoever is nominated by the Democrats in Manhattan wins, because reasons.**

Former New York Law Journal writer Dan Wise writes that the Manhattan Democratic Party judicial screening panel found Justice Doris Ling-Cohan unqualified for a second term.

My sources, however, report that the letter is very wide ranging in detailing instances of impropriety, including conflicts of interest, during the committee’s deliberations. Under party rules, the Judiciary Committee is required to adopt the findings of the 22-members of the panel unless it finds improprieties in the screening process or that the committee failed to follow its own rules.

So what’s wrong with Justice Ling-Cohan?

The panel found the judge was “lazy,” and “slow” in handling her caseload, multiple sources said.

Ling-Cohan’s reputation is “as one of the worst judges — non-productive, lazy, not hard-working, disorganized, takes a lot of time off, late with decisions,” the source said.

When she moved up to the Appellate Term in 2014, she left behind a Supreme Court backlog of hundreds of unfinished cases and undecided motions, said another source.

That’s a fairly big deal, as people’s lives linger in judicial hell when a judge fails to do her job, and it’s a problem that can be objectively determined. This matters, because it’s nearly impossible to not requalify a sitting judge.

“It’s a s—ty thing to do this to a sitting judge,” that source added. “It’s an unwritten rule that you really don’t find a sitting judge all of a sudden after 14 years unqualified, unless they’re an ax murderer or a pedophile.”

But the screening panel voted her unqualified, and that left the Democratic Party judicial commission in a quandary. The screening panels exist to create the appearance of nominating only qualified candidates rather than partisan favorites. The screening panel returned its verdict, and found Ling-Cohan unqualified. How, then, could the party run her anyway and ignore the panel’s recommendation?  You see, Justice Ling-Cohan had her supporters.

Ling-Cohan has enormous appeal in Manhattan’s political environment, which is heavily Democratic and distinctly liberal. She not only was the first Asian- American woman elected to the Supreme Court. She was also the first judge in New York State to have ruled that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected and has been a staunch supporter of tenant’s rights as both a trial judge and a member of the Appellate Term in Manhattan.

Her pro-same-sex marriage ruling made her a darling to the LGBTQ crowd.

But she is best known for her decision, in a five-couple class-action suit in 2005, to approve the right of same-sex couples to marry. She was the first trial judge in the state to do so, though her decision was quickly reversed on appeal.

Rejecting Ling-Cohan was “a slap in the face” to the LGBT community, said gay Democratic district leader Allen Roskoff.

“Judge Ling-Cohan is a great judge,” Roskoff said. “She is a hero and needs to be championed and revered.”

How can you ignore that she’s a “hero”?

Last week the Manhattan party leaders back-pedaled and made significant concessions to Ling-Cohan at the expense of party rules setting up the panel system in 1977 as a bulwark against allowing political considerations to compromise the selection of the party’s candidates for judgeships.

Despite its ironclad rule that the party could not endorse candidates not approved by the panel, the party’s executive committee last week agreed to condone the submission of Ling-Cohan’s name for nomination at the party’s judicial convention, which will be held on Sept. 22, even though she had failed to gain the panel’s approval.

Ironclad doesn’t mean what it used to mean, as least when it comes to electing a “hero” to the bench.  The party leadership explains that the screen committee that found her unqualified failed to follow the rules:

“The panel did not follow its rules in regards to considering incumbents,” Curtis Arluck, chairman of the party’s judicial committee, told The Post on Sunday.

He said a sitting judge being considered for re-election should get deference or the benefit of the doubt unless there are documented instances of egregious ethical or professional conduct.

A sitting judge who sucks? Meh. What did you expect when judges are elected?

*In New York, courtrooms are called “Parts.” There is no doubt a reason for it, but I never cared enough to learn what it was and just took it for granted.

**This does not mean that excellent, smart people aren’t nominated. They are. Just not always.

***From the description, Eric Turkewitz reminded me that it was Judge Irma Vidal Santaella.