“While some of the tales of woe emanating from the court are enough to bring tears to the eyes...

...it is true that only Supreme Court justices and schoolchildren are expected to and do take the entire summer off.”

That was John Roberts' response in 1983 to White House counsel Fred Fielding, who asked Roberts to evaluate a proposal then in circulation to create a kind of super appeals court to assist the Supreme Court with its ostensibly pressing workload. The New Yorker has a lenghty and compelling article about Roberts here, called "No More Mr. Nice Guy." It's certainly worth a read and has lots of inside stories about Roberts.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, it just granted cert in Conrad Black's case to decide the reach of the "honest services fraud" component of the mail fraud statute.

Or, if it's really a slow day, you can check out how much the airport can see when it does "whole body imaging."

Chief Justice on cameras in the Supreme Court

"It's not our job to educate the public. Our job is to decide vitally important cases under the Constitution."

That's what he told a group of high school students in response to a question about why there were no cameras in the High Court.

Is it me or isn't that a very self-important, arrogant and obnoxious answer? I like the Chief Justice, but I disagree with him strongly on this point. How does educating the public at all take away from deciding important cases?

Alito comes to the Southern District of Florida

Seems like the Justices enjoy taking road trips to South Florida. Alito spoke at a luncheon for the Palm Beach County Bar Association last week. He previously spoke at Alex Acosta's investitute. And the Chief was just in town speaking at the University of Miami. (Roberts was interviewed by Jan Crawford Greenburg, who has a new blog and a new book. I'm in the middle of the book, Supreme Conflict, and it's a must read for Court junkies.)

"If we want to continue to attract the best and the brightest to the bench, we need to pay them more than second-year associates."

That's Guy Lewis in yesterday's Miami Herald, commenting on the debate about whether federal judges should be paid more.

More news and notes

I've been on a news and notes kick lately...

1. "Chief justice off mark on judges' earnings; Judicial pay shouldn't be tied to Congressional salaries": The Miami Herald contains this editorial today concerning Chief Justice Roberts' year end report that I covered here.

2. On Friday, a Broward jury found Michael and Robert McKay guilty of racketeering conspiracy as president and secretary-treasurer of American Maritime Officers, a national labor union based in Dania Beach. Vanessa Blum covers the quick verdict (after a long trial) here. "Defense attorneys for the men said they were shocked by the jury's decision and how quickly it was reached. 'I can't read the jurors' minds, but they certainly didn't have time to go through all of the evidence in the case,' said attorney Neal Sonnett. Lawyer Fred Haddad, who represents Robert McKay, said he would ask U.S. District Judge James Cohn to order a new trial." The case was prosecuted by Robert Tulley.

3. How Appealing blogs here about a new TV show about Supreme Court clerks: "What's next -- Howie Mandel hosting cert. or no cert.? Hollywood's quest to glorify U.S. Supreme Court law clerks will soon reach new heights (or perhaps depths) as Fox Television has given the green light to a new series entitled 'Supreme Courtships.' According to Variety magazine, 'Supreme Courtships revolves around the professional and personal world of six Supreme Court clerks. Tieche and Adelstein Productions ('Prison Break') principals Marty Adelstein and Michael Thorn will produce.' And The Hollywood Reporter says that 'Supreme Courtships, from 20th Century Fox TV and Adelstein Prods., is a comedic drama about the personal and professional lives of six Supreme Court clerks and their supervisors.'" Above the Law has more here.

4. "Pulling on a Fine Line: Case raises questions about when a N.Y. lawyer may advise snowbirds in Florida." From the intro to the ABA Journal article: "A licensed Florida lawyer may advise clients in that state on New York matters, even if he or she is not licensed in New York.So why can’t a licensed New York lawyer advise Sunshine State residents on New York matters, even though he is not licensed in Florida?" The article continues:

When immigration lawyer M. Ronald Gould raised that question in a lawsuit filed against officials of the Florida Bar, a federal district court gave him an answer he didn’t like.Gould filed his action after the bar, which has enforcement authority over Florida’s professional conduct rules for lawyers, nixed his plan to advertise his availability to advise clients on “New York legal matters only” out of an office in Miami.“I save them money because they don’t have to fly to New York to see a lawyer, and they don’t have to pay a lawyer extra money to come see them,” says Gould, who’s been admitted to practice in New York since 1961 and has lived in Florida nearly three decades. “Many people here still have business in New York, and I want to be available to them.”Gould’s suit argued that the Florida Bar’s restrictions on his advertising violate his free speech rights under the First Amendment and cited his “genuine and credible fear” that the bar would charge him with unauthorized practice of law (a third-degree felony under state law) if he went ahead with his plan. But in a decision issued Aug. 8, District Judge Federico A. Moreno granted the bar’s motion for summary judgment. Gould v. Harkness, No. 04-23178-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla.). Gould has appealed the ruling to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

We're Back

Welcome back to work, and thanks for sneaking away for a few minutes to check in here. (You won't find any resolutions or wish lists here. For that check out Rumpole or Brian Tannebaum.)

The last two weeks have been quiet in the District, but things always heat up to start the year. For example, lots should be happening with the biggest case in the District (and probably the country) -- the Padilla case. Oral argument on the Government's expedited appeal will be heard this month. Also, Padilla will be evaluated by a jail doctor shortly. And soon to follow will be hearings on Padilla's allegations regarding torture and misconduct.

To start the year, I'll give you the end of year report from Chief Justice Roberts, which can be read here (hat tip to the usual suspects -- Doug Berman, ScotusBlog, and How Appealing). It's an interesting read, asking for only one thing: higher salaries for federal judges to ensure the independence of the judiciary. He also notes that the pay problem has had other consequences -- judges are starting to come mostly from the public sector where in the past most judges came from private practice. Even though it's a pretty dry subject, the Chief is such a great writer, making the report fun to read.

Here's the intro:

Between December 19 and January 8 there are 32 college bowl games–but only one Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. I once asked my predecessor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, why he released this annual report on the state of the federal courts on New Year‘s Day. He explained that it was difficult to get people to focus on the needs of the judiciary and January 1 was historically a slow news day–a day on which the concerns of the courts just might get noticed.

This is my second annual report on the judiciary, and in it I am going to discuss only one issue–in an effort to increase even more the chances that people will take notice. That is important because the issue has been ignored far too long and has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary.

I am talking about the failure to raise judicial pay. This is usually the point at which many will put down the annual report and return to the Rose Bowl, but bear with me long enough to consider just three very revealing charts prepared by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

The appendix is also interesting. Here's a portion from the Appendix:

Nationwide, the number of criminal appeals dropped by 5% to 15,246 filings, after rising by 28% in 2005 in response to the Booker decision. Despite that decline, the number of criminal appeals in 2006 surpassed by more than 25% the number of filings in the years before the Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)....

The number of criminal cases filed in 2006 decreased by 4% to 66,860 cases and 88,216 defendants. The decline stemmed from shifts in priorities of the United States Department of Justice, which directed more of its resources toward combating terrorism. The number of criminal cases filed in 2006 is similar to the number of cases filed in 2002, when criminal case filings jumped by 7% following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Although the number of criminal case filings declined in 2006, the median time for case disposition for defendants climbed from 6.8 months in 2005 to 7.1 months in 2006. The median time period, which was 27 days longer than in 2004, reflected an increase in the time that courts needed to process post-Booker cases.

Anyone have the numbers for this District?