Hawaii's sole African-American Judge, Sandra Simms, has been told by the Judicial Selection Commission that she will not be retained as a Judge. The Commission did not give a reason, but there is speculation as to the unstated reason: She's too soft on criminals.

Defense attorneys who have appeared before Simms praised her judicial demeanor and said her rulings are based on the facts of the case and the law, regardless of how it might affect her position on the court. "She gives everyone who came before her a level playing field," said attorney William Harrison. "She made decisions on what she thought was right and showed a lot of integrity."

An African-American community leader said the decision not to reappoint Simms "sends a terrible message. "I think it is shameful when you have a person who is a double minority and is not reappointed," said Faye Kennedy, first vice president of the NAACP. "There are so few African-American jurists, and very few women," said Kennedy. "It is a sad commentary on the state of a diverse and fair court."

Both the NAACP and the Hawaii Women's Political Caucus had sent supportive letters to the Commission on Sims' behalf. The process is done in secret, so no one really can say why Sims wasn't retained. One defense attorney said:

....the perception by many of Simms as being soft on defendants "is totally incorrect, and that's based on people disagreeing with a handful of cases -- and that's not indicative of how she handles her calendar," he said.

But no one's come up with another explanation for her ouster. And in other Hawaii developments, the State Attorney General has called for four constitutional amendments that will benefit prosecutors.

by TChris

Since his nomination, TalkLeft has cautioned that Brent Kavanaugh, a former aide to Ken Starr, should not be appointed to a judgeship on the influential D.C. Circuit. (TalkLeft background here here here.)

Clay Risen argues that Kavanaugh is driven by political ambition, not by ideology. According to Risen, "Kavanaugh's only consistent guiding principle seems to be an abiding dedication to the Republican Party--and to his own career." Whether a judge advances a right wing ideology or a right wing political agenda might be academically interesting, but the viewpoints will intersect in most cases. Whether driven by ideology or politics, we don't need more judges who will further the more extreme interests of the right wing. Kavanaugh will be one of those judges, and for that reason, his nomination must be blocked.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter was attacked last night while jogging.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter was assaulted by two men Friday night and taken to a hospital with minor injuries, a court spokeswoman said. The incident occurred while he was jogging about 9 p.m. Friday, said Kathy Arberg, a court spokeswoman. Law enforcement sources told CNN the incident occurred near the Potomac River waterfront in southwest Washington, not far from Souter's home. Arberg said that the motive was not robbery, but law enforcement sources said it appeared to be a random attack.

The attackers were reportedly young men. Why would they randomly attack an adult male jogger at 9:00 pm except to rob him? For kicks? Strange. In any event, our best wishes to Justice Souter for a speedy recovery.

by TChris

Supreme Court Justice David Souter was attacked while jogging alone at about 9:00 p.m. yesterday. He was treated for minor injuries and is feeling fine.

by TChris

People who answer questions in front of Senate Committees often find it difficult to formulate a truthful answer, but one of the biggest whoppers told in recent weeks came from Brett Kavanaugh, who has been nominated for a judgeship on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Kavanaugh has played a key role in the Bush administration's effort to pack the federal courts with conservative judges. Yet Kavanaugh testified that the White House does not consider the ideology of judicial nominees.

Oh really?

"So can you name five pro-choice judges he has put forward?" Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, demanded. When Mr. Kavanaugh hesitated, Ms. Feinstein said: "Can you name four? Three? Two, or even one?"

There's no mistake about Kavanaugh's own ideology. As Ken Starr's deputy, Kavanaugh wrote the report to Congress opining that grounds existed to impeach President Clinton.

The radical right is alive and running amuck in the Colorado legislature. Judicial impeachment hearings are underway for Denver District Court Judge John Coughlin. It is the first such proceeding in 65 years. His "offense" concerns his ruling in a child custody case involving a lesbian couple:

Coughlin was ruling in a custody case between Clark, a Christian, and Elsey McLeod, her former partner, when he wrote that Clark would have sole decision-making over the child's religious upbringing. However, Coughlin barred Clark from teaching the child anything that would be "considered homophobic."

The chief sponsor of the impeachment proceedings is Rep. Greg Brophy, R-Wray who, "before a packed crowd in the Old Supreme Court Chambers, said he couldn't sit idly by when he needed to protect citizens from the "runaway judicial branch."

At least Colorado Governor Bill Owens, also a Republican, is harshly critical of the impeachment effort. But that hasn't been enough to stop it from getting as far as a hearing:

by TChris

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, responding to a letter from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press that criticized federal Marshals for seizing and erasing tape recordings of speeches he gave to students, announced that he is revising his policy "so as to permit recording [of his speeches] for use of the print media." He said that he has also written letters of apology to the reporters involved. TalkLeft's background on this controversy is available here and here.

In his letter to the Reporters Committee, Scalia, 68, said he doesn't control the marshals' actions and will express his "preference'' that they not confiscate recordings.

In other words, Justice Scalia now prefers that the Marshals obey the law, which prohibits the seizure of notes or recordings from journalists under most circumstances. The Committee's letter (pdf) to John Ashcroft and the Marshals has not been answered, but a spokeman for the Marshals' office promised a response after the letter has been reviewed.

Update: from New York Times Columnist Bob Herbert:

When agents acting on behalf of a Supreme Court justice can just snatch and destroy information collected by reporters, we haven't just thumbed our nose at the Constitution, we've taken a very dangerous step in a very ugly direction. The depot at the end of that dark road is totalitarianism.

[hat tip to Sean Paul at The Agonist]

by TChris

Former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards is challenging his conviction of extorting payoffs for casino riverboat licenses. He contends that the federal judge presiding in his case, Frank J. Polozola, was too batty to be on the bench. To prove his contention, Edwards wants to introduce evidence from a lawsuit that Judge Polozola brought in state court arising out of a traffic accident. Edwards contends that Judge Polozola admitted in his accident suit that he was impaired by his use of Oxy Contin during a time frame that includes Edwards' trial.

In the accident case, filed in 1998, Judge Polozola, 62, sought compensation for a "serious physical injury" that caused him mental anguish and "impairment of function." In the trial in 2000, Mr. Edwards's lawyers wrote in filings, the judge engaged in "erratic, even paranoid" behavior. The accident case was settled in 2001, and testimony from the judge, his psychiatrist and his psychologist was sealed.

Edwards wants to unseal that evidence, but federal prosecutors asked Judge Polozola to assume control of the state court case to avoid "irreparable injury to a national interest." Perhaps feeling that his own reputation was the "national interest" at stake, Judge Polozola granted the request only twenty minutes after it was made, ordering the evidence in his own case transferred to federal court and sealed.

The action disturbs experts in legal ethics.

Writing in the Washington Post, Senator Edward Kennedy rails against the confirmation of William Haynes as Federal Appeals Court Judge:

Haynes has been nominated to the influential 4th Circuit on the basis of his work as general counsel for the Department of Defense. In that capacity he has developed and defended three of the administration's most controversial policies: the refusal to treat any of the hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions of 1949; the department's military tribunal plan for trying suspected war criminals; and even the incarceration of U.S. citizens without counsel or judicial review.

An essential part of winning the war on terrorism is protecting the ideals that the United States stands for at home and around the world. The basic checks and balances in the Constitution are indispensable to our democracy and a continuing source of our country's strength, not luxuries or inconveniences to be jettisoned in times of crisis. The mass detentions at Guantanamo have clearly damaged our reputation abroad, caused serious tensions with our allies, and violated fundamental principles of international law that have long protected U.S. soldiers serving abroad and American citizens traveling in other countries.

Here comes Haynes:

The Senate Judiciary Committee today voted 10 to 9 to send Bush's nomination of William Myers for a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to a full vote of the Judiciary Committee. Here is what People for American Way have to say:

“If only this nomination were a bad April Fool’s Day joke. With no judicial experience, William Myers is one of the least qualified nominees the Bush Administration has put forward, and among the farthest from the mainstream of judicial philosophy. “His record demonstrates his willingness to take his private-sector advocacy as a lobbyist for the mining and cattle industries directly to his job as a public servant at the Interior Department. His anti-environmental stance and disregard for the rights of Indian tribes have led to fierce opposition from environmental groups and tribal leaders.

“Like other Bush nominees, Myers embraces a radical, ‘neo-federalist’ approach to the Constitution, so anti-government that it threatens to dismantle hard-won victories in environmental protection, reproductive choice, health and safety and social justice. His particular antipathy toward tribal rights and environmental safeguards make him the wrong choice for the 9th circuit, a huge judicial district that includes vast stretches of fragile federal lands, and is home to millions of Native Americans.

“Myers’ thin judicial qualifications, extremist philosophy and deeply troubling record should be enough to convince a majority of the Senate to reject his nomination outright. If not, we urge Senate opponents to use every means to block this nomination. The Senate has approved 173 Bush Administration nominees to the appellate and district courts, and blocked just six. If necessary, Mr. Myers should be the seventh. ”

Here is PFAW's memo on Mr. Myers.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is the country's oldest, biggest and most diverse civil and human rights group. It has more than 180 member organizations. The group has sent a letter to CBS charging that Mike Wallace's '60 Minutes' interview with Bush recess appointee Charles Pickering was distorted in its coverage of those opposing his nomination:

Far from a balanced piece of journalism, Mr. Wallace's segment unfairly distorted arguments put forth by Pickering's opponents; failed to accurately convey the range of serious concerns that many Americans have with this nomination; and chose to highlight only those aspects of Pickering's record supporting his thesis that opposition to Pickering's confirmation is thin and that the criticism is exaggerated," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference, in a letter to Don Hewitt. The Leadership Conference.... and more than 84 national, state and local organizations opposed Pickering's confirmation, saying his record as a district court judge and as a state senator shows his hostility to civil and constitutional rights.

"Most significantly," Henderson said, "the 60 Minutes piece, rather than discussing the arguments of proponents and detractors forthrightly, instead set up a straw-man — the notion that opposition to Pickering is rooted in charges that he is a racist. ... It is not, in fact, any part of the real debate over this confirmation. The real question is whether Pickering's record warrants elevation to the Fifth Circuit."

Since Pickering is a recess appointee, unless confirmed by the Senate, he will have to leave his seat on the 5th Circuit next January. [link via How Appealing.]

In other judiciary news, Senator Tom Daschle has vowed to block all Bush judicial nominees unless he promises not to make any more recess appointments.

We saw Bush's recess judicial appointee to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Charles Pickering on "60 Minutes" following Condi Rice. He showed himself to be every bit the conservative judicial activist people have been fearing all along. Rebuttable Presumption gives a recap--and, having worked in a federal probation office, some good commentary.

We were pretty disgusted with Pickering's interview. Of all the cases that show the unfairness of the federal sentencing guidelines--the one case he felt so strongly about he decided he just could not impose the mandated sentence--was that of a cross-burner convicted of a hate crime. He twisted the prosecution's arm to drop part of the charge so that he only had to give the guy 2 1/2 years instead of the recommended 7 1/2 years.

Protecting the independence and integrity of our federal courts is one of the best reasons we can think of for Booting Bush.

Update: For the reasons we oppose Charles Pickering and think he is not an acceptable federal appeals court judge, go here and here.

The President does not have a right to flood the judiciary with far right-wing ideologists, particularly if there is any indication that they will become judicial activists--deciding cases based upon their conservative views rather than the law. We lost on Pickering. The next one coming up is William Meyers. Act now to oppose his confirmation to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.