Lifetime judicial politicians

Those who run our court system and claim that it can dispense justice in an impartial way hate even the slightest suggestion that politics might influence their decisions. A few years back, after a federal district court decision with major political implications, I mentioned in a story that the judge had been nominated to the bench by a Republican president. Later that day, I got an email from him directly, complaining that my reporting left an impression that his ruling had been influenced by his ideology. Actually, I had taken great pains to mention only that fact, leaving it to the audience to decide whether it was relevant.

Normally a judge wouldn’t think of communicating his displeasure directly. Sometimes a minion would do it, or he or she would complain to associates or simply seethe in private. At the time, I responded that I’d be happy to offer him television time to respond. Frankly, I was being unfair, because those on the federal bench can get in a heap of trouble if they go on TV or make any extrajudicial comment in media. So, in truth, I was telling his honor that while I always welcome viewer comments, he should bug off.

Besides, as the lawyers would say, the prima facie evidence suggests that our judges are indeed heavily influenced by their political philosophies, and that many of their decisions are distorted by them. We certainly don’t have to look very hard. The Supreme Court is openly divided into conservative and liberal blocs, with one guy, Anthony Kennedy, out there as the supposed swing vote. Granted, some of the justices can express their predispositions in unpredictable ways, but they are obviously guided by their right or left leanings. Chief Justice John Roberts’ claim during his confirmation hearing that they’re ideally an “umpire,” has become a laugh line, except maybe to the real ones in baseball.

And it’s not only the Supremes. We’ve just been exposed to the sad spectacle of two different federal appeals courts making diametrically opposed rulings on whether insurance subsidies for Obamacare are legal in the 36 states that were forced to rely on federal exchanges to enroll customers for health insurance. If not, it could gut the Affordable Care Act.

The arguments were the same: six judges on two courts heard them. Then, every one followed the party line. On the D.C. Circuit, it was 2-to-1 against the subsidies, two Republican appointees against, the Democrat for. In Richmond at the 4th Circuit, all three judges were Democrats, and all three ruled the subsidies were lawful -- an amazing coincidence.

Actually, the official website of the United States Courts states, “The work of the federal courts touches upon many of the most significant issues affecting the American people, and federal judges exercise wide authority and discretion in the cases over which they preside.”

So a president’s most important legacy is his picks for the federal bench. The judges and justices are there for life, unless they do something so egregious that they’re impeached in the House of Representatives, convicted by the Senate and removed. It’s happened just eight times in U.S. history.

As tough as it is to change the Constitution, perhaps we need to revisit lifetime tenure. Certainly the independence of the federal bench has led to decisions that have righted many wrongs in our society. The civil-rights rulings in the face of popular passions are a shining example. And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton himself argued that appointments for life were “the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.”

The question is whether we can count on that impartiality or whether it’s just a myth passed on by judges who are, after all, fallible human beings -- and obviously political ones.

 

Bob Franken is a longtime broadcast journalist including 20 years at CNN.

More

Sat, 01/21/2017 - 23:42

What others say: Obama took right tack on Cuba

There’s no solution to the half-century old Cuba problem that will satisfy everyone, but we strongly believe President Obama made the right decision to end the troubled “wet foot, dry foot” policy.

Read more

What others say: Obama’s legacy a mixed one

President Barack Obama leaves office Friday after eight years as the most consequential Democrat to occupy the White House since Lyndon Johnson. And unlike that Texan, whose presidency was born in tragedy and ended in failure, Obama will not have the ghost of the Vietnam War haunting his days and eating his conscience as LBJ did all the remaining days of his life.

Read more

Op-ed: Trump won the news conference

Donald Trump should do press conferences more often. Not for the country’s sake, certainly not for the media’s sake, but for his. He really shouldn’t have waited 167-plus days to hold one, because the man gives great sound bite. Although I’ve participated in probably thousands of these staged encounters as a reporter, they’re not my favorite way of getting news — you almost never get any. The guy at the podium controls the proceeding. He can get his message out with little challenge from the assembled journalists who are limited to a question and a follow-up, maybe. Politicians can bob and weave through that without any of us landing a blow. And that’s our job: to penetrate the canned responses to their version of the controversy du jour and get at whatever truth they are hiding. Besides, Trump — who uses contempt for the media as a weapon, his preferred way to discredit reporting that displeases him —has a wonderful forum to do that. At the very least he should hold these confrontations as a supplement to his Twitter tirades. And frequently. It’s his opportunity to hold the media hostage as they cover live his rain of abuse on them.

Read more

Good luck in Juneau

The 30th Alaska Legislature gavels in on Tuesday, and we’d like to take a moment to wish our Kenai Peninsula legislators good luck over the coming months in Juneau.

Read more