UPDATE -- Here's Steve Vladeck's detailed take on the whole thing.
Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones went off on Professor Steve Vladeck at a Federalist Society meeting this weekend. But her attack, ironically, was extremely personal. She was upset that Professor Vladeck has been critical of the Shadow Docket and judge-shopping in one-judge venues and equates those critiques with judges needing protection.
This Law & Crime article has some of the details, although it's hard to summarize just how personal and aggressive Judge Jones appeared. Here's the video if you'd like to watch. There's lots to see here, but start at 1:15 some of her most aggressive attacks.
Judge Jones may not like discussion about areas of the law that seem wrong, but the truth is -- we need law professors to be writing about the courts and exposing these issues so that they can be discussed. I thought the whole point of the Federalist Society was to have open discussions, not to personally go after those on the other side. Perhaps that why the Federalist Society had to apologize later that day. Kudos to Vladeck for standing up to and holding his own against a very hostile judge and panel in an unfriendly environment.
Here's some snippets from the Law & Crime article:
In September, Vladeck, responding to another judge on a popular law blog, argued why he believes this behavior is “problematic.” The law professor highlighted 47 incidents in which Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued to stop Biden administration policies.
“Of those 47, zero have been filed where the Texas government is actually located (i.e., Austin),” Vladeck wrote. “[Twenty-four of those lawsuits], including yesterday’s, have been filed in single-judge divisions; another six were filed in divisions where Texas had a 95% chance of drawing a specific judge. And when asked why it keeps filing in these geographically obscure (and unrelated) parts of the state, Texas has publicly conceded that it has nothing to do with that particular forum’s connection to the litigation, but rather is entirely because it wants those judges to hear those cases.”
Jones described this behavior as nothing nefarious — insisting litigants have aimed to choose one judge over another since the period described in the Bible’s book of Genesis.
“Something’s going on here, and it’s very unsavory,” the judge said. “Attacks on the judiciary, I fully agree with the others, are ultimately attacks on the rule of law.”
After that, the panel discussed other matters for a while — but Vladeck steered the conversation back to judge-shopping.
Attempting to inject some levity, the law professor suggested he and the judge should “just go get a beer and have a chat” before stressing that he “never used the term ‘close to unethical’ in describing anyone’s behavior.”
***
Jones, for her part, was unmoved by the argument — or the alcohol-themed entreaty.
“I have studied Professor Vladeck,” the judge said in response — and then theatrically raised a manilla folder with documents askew and poking out. “And this is a file of his articles, amicus briefs, and tweets regarding the process of judge-picking that he criticizes so heavily.”
As she opened the file to rifle through its contents in front of the audience, Jones went on to read several tweets of Vladeck’s, along with the title of one legal article, which she said evidence a series of “attacks” on “the character” of various Republican-appointed judges.
***
“The consequence of all this is that Judge [Mattthew] Kacsmaryk is under 24-hour per day protection,” Jones said — referring to a Trump-appointed judge who hears every case filed in the Northern District of Texas’ Amarillo division. “And he has five kids.”
The implication was clear enough. And the panel grew increasingly tense as the barbs flowed from one to another.
At one point, during the back-and-forth, Vladeck sarcastically thanked the judge for proving his point “about how we’re shouting past each other and not engaging on substance.”
At another point, Jones angrily slammed her hand down on the table to keep the law professor from interjecting.
“I think it’s rather unfortunate what’s happened this afternoon,” Vladeck said in response to Jones’ criticisms. “And I wish that it weren’t so. But I also think that it says a lot about where we are that instead of having a conversation about whether this is a good thing or not, we decide to turn this into a ‘Can I put words into your mouth that make you look bad?’ And it seems like that’s not the kind of debates that I thought the Federalist Society was interested in sponsoring, and I’m disappointed it’s the conversation we’ve had today.”
Jones stuck to her guns.
“The point of attacking these judges is to diminish their reputations, to suggest that the state of Texas and other state attorneys general who filed in these jurisdictions are doing something improper,” she said.
10 comments:
They are doing something unsavory if not improper. As is this judge - talk about conduct unbecoming the judiciary.
It was an interesting panel. I do think that Professor Vladeck is not nearly as bad as Josh Chafetz and some of the Georgetown professors that have actually said it’s ok to protest outside judges and justices homes. And I think Judge Jones needs to learn how to make a much better argument. This wasn’t a room where she was presiding and frankly I don’t see how she ever won a case as a lawyer if she ever did. Probably one of the coolest things about the conference is the keynote address at the Scalia Dinner. The speakers were Justices Breyer and Gorsuch. Sheldon Whitehouse is probably being seen for chest pains after that.
Auditioning for some positions that might be open soon
Jones?? She’s like 110 years old.
These judges have incredible robeitis. Amazing.
Although it hasn't gotten much (if any) attention in all this, Judge Jones also heavily defended allegedly cognitively impaired, uncooperative, and combative 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman and suggested that her being suspended by her colleagues on the Federal Circuit was also somehow improper. That says a lot about where Judge Jones is at.
Remember when Judge Jones headed the Fifth Circuit investigation of sexual misconduct by Judge Samuel Kent in Galveston, found no wrongdoing and took no action, and then Kent was later indicted for aggravated sexual abuse, pled guilty to obstruction, was impeached, and resigned. Good times!
I agree with Vladeck but he has an annoying quality to him.
So many judges cannot take someone disagreeing with them... is it a Federalist thing?? Robes made in China??
I watched the whole thing in parts and finished last night. What an amazing demonstration of poor judicial temperament. Both judges Jones and Ho (although mostly judge Jones) showed that they are not fit for the bench.
I'll start with Judge Ho because, its brevity makes it simpler. Judge Ho's opening statement boiled down to this: liberal academics don't agree with him so they aren't fit to comment on the judiciary. Wow! Just wow. Also, his closing "joke" about not knowing what a QR code is demonstrates that he is too far out of touch to be ruling on real world issues. It felt like HW Bush's statement that he didn't know how much a gallon of milk cost.
Judge Jones's performance, though, is beyond the pale. Her partisan ad hominem attacks, her unrestrained anger, and her tunnel vision were shocking. She was completely unwilling to accept the possibility of disagreement, to separate the man from the issues, or to entertain the possibility that the bench would be subject to the checks and balances by congress and the executive that the framers intended. She is living proof of why judges should NOT have lifetime tenure. Her long term on the bench has insulated her from reality and given her such an inflated sense of self and her position that she has lost all sight of the fact that she is a public servant in a democratic constitutional republic. This should be shocking, but in today's environment (and I am not exempting liberal public servants from this), nothing is shocking anymore.
Post a Comment