Verbosities

Power Line: Another Arizona Republican throws in with Russ Feingold on "ethics" legislation

John Fund reports on an effort by certain Senators, including the normally sensible John Kyl, to restrict the ability of federal judges to obtain continuing legal education and to appear at private law schools where they might educate others. The effort takes the form of an amendment to legislation raising the pay of federal judges. The amendment would ban federal judges from attending non-government or bar association-sponsored seminars and educational programs. It would also cap at $5,000 the amount judges may receive annually in reimbursement for travel, meals etc. for speaking engagements, and at $1,500 the amount they may receive per speaking engagement unless the funding comes from the federal or State government or a bar association.

The general effect of the amendment would be to make it difficult for anyone other than bar associations to have programs at which judges appear. One specific effect would likely be to shut down George Mason’s highly respected programs for training judges in, among other areas, the intersection of law and economics.

Though the left has been railing against the George Mason programs for years, Fund points out that judges of all persuasions have found them invaluable. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who attended two such programs, wrote: “For lifting the veil on such mysteries as regression analysis, and for advancing both learning and collegial relationships among federal judges, my enduring appreciation." And, though critics like Russ Feingold, who is sponsoring the amendment along with Kyl, argue that the George Mason programs represent "a way for corporations to reach out to judges," Fund notes that corporate sponsors account for less than 10 percent of the budget for George Mason's seminars, and lecturers address only general principles of how the law intersects with economics, not specific controversial issues.

There’s no mystery as to why liberal Senators like Feingold wish to hand a monopoly on judge’s appearances and judge's continuing legal education to the public sector and, above all, to liberal bar groups. Feingold well understands that the less judges know, especially about economics, the more likely they are to issue knee-jerk decisions informed more by emotion than by sound reasoning.

Why Senator Kyl has thrown in with Feingold is less clear. Perhaps he believes that judges should have to give up “junkets” as a condition of receiving their pay increase. But under the amendment, judges won’t have to give up junkets; they will only have to give up non-bar-Association-sponsored junkets, thus leaving themselves at the mercy of the official Judicial Conference programs, which tilt left.

This issue isn't really all that hard to understand. Judges are nominated to the federal bench by a (presumably) ideologically-compatible administration. They already come pre-packaged with their own legal theories through which they interpret the cases they are asked to adjudicate. We all understand this, and the vetting/confirmation process is what puts this all on the table up front.

So there are lefty judges, middle-of-the-road judges and righty judges. We all get that.

Now, the problem isn't that the judges are merely "obtain(ing) continuing legal education." It's that there have been cases where federal judges have been sent on junkets by corporations with cases pending in federal courts. Whether or not there's any sort of influence being peddled - from subtle ideological shifts to outright bribery - we can all agree that when a judge gives the appearance of conflicted interest, that is reason enough for attorneys representing either side to request a mistrial or recusal.

Look, if it were at all humanly possible to seal federal judges in a protective bubble free from any and all outside influence from the moment they are seated on the bench, that'd be the optimal solution. In the absence of that, it is absolutely crucial to prevent the appearance that the judges could conceivably be in anyone's pocket. The Power Line article does mention that there are current regulations on the books that mandate the disclosure of "gifts" (which includes travel and lodging, presumably) and all "education programs" which they attend, but if a Pinko Commie like Feingold and a Rabid Wingnut like Kyl both agree that disclosure doesn't go far enough, I'd like to think this is the type of bipartisan solution that makes sense to all involved.

Judges shouldn't be in anyone's pocket, nor should there ever be a shadow of a doubt about that fact.

(And by the way, when a Power Line blogger accuses the Bar Association of providing programs that "tilt left," what he generally means is that they don't uniformly tilt right. If there's a concern over the quality of the ideology being peddled, some of these conservative-leaning college programs should aim for Bar Association sponsorship. I'm sure that would be a better answer than to continue to allow Monsanto to put fifteen federal judges from the heartland up on Marco Island for three nights of prime rib and gimlets [not that that's happened, it's just a hypothetical].)

Powered by ScribeFire.