The Maine Voices piece in the PPH is interesting for those who support court reform. John Massaro, the author, has a couple of excellent points with which many people would agree, and some directly political points which are unknowable, more speculative and therefore less meaningful for judicial reform..
Massaro is absolutely right that a legislative Judiciary Committee - either state or federal - should raise questions in committee about the politics and ideology of judicial candidates - both new appointments and re-appointments. Judicial ideology and political views are inescapable for anybody - judges included - and unavoidably bound to have an impact (for better or worse) on judicial decisions. The public and the oversight committees need to know how the ideological deck is stacked, and it needs to be in the record for future reference.
Mr Massimo indirectly raises an important, often taboo question: are judges truly impartial? While the "bench" has standards for judges and political behavior, these are for the judges' public 'persona'- not the "inner judge". Knowing a judges partisan and ideological leanings, as recorded in an appointment hearing, might help litigants to decide about when to challenge a judge's impartiality, about bias or conflicts of interest.
In Maine judicial appointment hearings for the vetting of judges in the Judiciary Committee are truly woeful: a perfunctory, innocuous "white wash". The committee relies almost entirely on unpublished, unexamined Maine Bar surveys, used exclusively by the Governor's appointment advocate. As a result committee questions for judicial candidates are beyond banal. Almost at the level of: "Read any good books, lately?" "Think the rain will ruin the rhubarb?" Judicial vetting function in public by a committee of the legislature is vital and badly in need of repair with more serious evaluation of judicial candidates.
Massaro is absolutely right that a legislative Judiciary Committee - either state or federal - should raise questions in committee about the politics and ideology of judicial candidates - both new appointments and re-appointments. Judicial ideology and political views are inescapable for anybody - judges included - and unavoidably bound to have an impact (for better or worse) on judicial decisions. The public and the oversight committees need to know how the ideological deck is stacked, and it needs to be in the record for future reference.
Mr Massimo indirectly raises an important, often taboo question: are judges truly impartial? While the "bench" has standards for judges and political behavior, these are for the judges' public 'persona'- not the "inner judge". Knowing a judges partisan and ideological leanings, as recorded in an appointment hearing, might help litigants to decide about when to challenge a judge's impartiality, about bias or conflicts of interest.
In Maine judicial appointment hearings for the vetting of judges in the Judiciary Committee are truly woeful: a perfunctory, innocuous "white wash". The committee relies almost entirely on unpublished, unexamined Maine Bar surveys, used exclusively by the Governor's appointment advocate. As a result committee questions for judicial candidates are beyond banal. Almost at the level of: "Read any good books, lately?" "Think the rain will ruin the rhubarb?" Judicial vetting function in public by a committee of the legislature is vital and badly in need of repair with more serious evaluation of judicial candidates.
No comments:
Post a Comment