"Calling John Roberts"

That's the headline of Linda Greenhouse's article in the NYTimes, calling for Justice Roberts to issue a strong end-of-year report explaining that the Senate is imperiling the judicial branch with all of the vacancies (as Justice Rehnquist had done in the past). Here is the conclusion to the article:


Unlike the president’s State of the Union message, which is required by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the annual report on the state of the judiciary is a modern tradition. It was begun just 40 years ago by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and carried on with enthusiasm by Chief Justice Rehnquist, who often used it for significant pronouncements on judicial policy.
Chief Justice Roberts has had a rather problematic relationship to the tradition during his five years in office. The focus of his first report, on Dec. 31, 2005, was judicial pay. Noting that federal judges’ earning power had eroded by 24 percent since 1969, he said that Congress’s failure to raise judicial salaries presented a “direct threat to judicial independence.” While in my view he was completely right on the merits of the issue, some members of Congress resented what they viewed as hyperbole from the new chief justice, and the public responded with a shrug. The much-deserved pay raise has yet to happen.
Then last year, Chief Justice Roberts went minimalist, so much so that it left many people scratching their heads. Here was his report, in full, minus the statistical appendix:

Chief Justice Warren Burger began the tradition of a yearly report on the federal judiciary in 1970, in remarks he presented to the American Bar Association. He instituted that practice to discuss the problems that federal courts face in administering justice. In the past few years, I have adhered to the tradition that Chief Justice Burger initiated and have provided my perspective on the most critical needs of the judiciary. Many of those needs remain to be addressed. This year, however, when the political branches are faced with so many difficult issues, and when so many of our fellow citizens have been touched by hardship, the public might welcome a year-end report limited to what is essential: The courts are operating soundly, and the nation’s dedicated federal judges are conscientiously discharging their duties. I am privileged and honored to be in a position to thank the judges and court staff throughout the land for their devoted service to the cause of justice.

Best wishes in the New Year.

Tony Mauro, a longtime observer of the court, responded on The Blog of Legal Times, “Imagine if the president, instead of giving a full State of the Union address, sent a note to Congress telling the legislative branch that life is good, all is O.K., and let’s catch up next year.”
I’m willing to assume that last year’s baffling report was the result of judicial modesty rather than an idea deficit. In any event, I look forward to waking up on New Year’s Day to this headline or its reasonable equivalent: “Senate Imperils Judicial System, Roberts Says.”

Why aren't more judges speaking out against the guidelines?

Here's an article about Judge John Gleeson's recent response to DOJ's criticism of fraud sentences:

A federal judge in Brooklyn has rebutted the criticism by a top Department of Justice official that many federal judges have "lost" their "moorings to the sentencing guidelines" in major fraud cases.
The attack on a "regime" of judges who impose fraud sentences "inconsistently and without regard to the federal sentencing guidelines" appeared in a letter sent in June by Jonathan J. Wroblewski, the director of the Office of Policy and Legislation to the chief of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Judge William K. Sessions III.
Last week, Eastern District Judge John Gleeson responded to Wroblewski's implication that, as Gleeson put it, fraud sentences "are inexplicably and unjustifiably all over the lot."
In a 16-page "statement of reasons" for a fraud sentence, Gleeson wrote that the discrepancies between guideline sentences and actual sentences is not evidence of the unmooring of judges, but rather indicative of the difficulty of capturing the nuances of a complex case in a list of guidelines.
The 539-page Sentencing Guidelines Manual is only one of eight factors that judges are statutorily required to consider at sentencing, Gleeson added.
He also noted that if judges had truly become unmoored from the guidelines, then prosecutors would appeal sentences more frequently -- only 18 of the 1,711 below-range fraud sentences issued last year were appealed.
"[I]n determining whether reforms are needed, and especially in determining whether the existing guideline should be burdened with even more adjustments, the Commission should examine whether our system already provides an adequate solution for the claimed 'unacceptable' outcomes the Department complains about," Gleeson wrote in United States v. Ovid, 09-CR-216. "I suggest that it does, in the form of appellate review, and for all of the handwringing in the DOJ Letter about unacceptable sentences, the Department for the most part has not even tried to avail itself of that solution."

Gleeson is no push over. He is a former federal prosecutor and the prosecutor who put away John Gotti. He's tough but he's known as fair and extremely smart. I'm hoping that, like Gleeson and others are doing, more and more judges will start to stand up to these draconian guidelines that have no relationship to the goals of sentencing.

Hat tip -- Sentencing Law and Policy

Domestic disputes resulting from marital infidelities and culminating in a thumb burn are appropriately handled by local law enforcement authorities.

That was Paul Clement to the Supreme Court in this fascinating case about the reach of the feds and whether the 10th Amendment could be a new weapon in the fight against the over-criminalization by the federal government. From the NY Times:

The Tea Party’s favorite part of the Constitution — the 10th Amendment, which limits federal power — arrived at the Supreme Court last week. In keeping with the spirit of the times, it came wrapped in the plot of a soap opera.

The amendment has played a starring role in challenges to the recent federal health care legislation. But the justices have not made the task of divining their own views particularly easy.

Their most recent consideration of where Congress’s constitutional power ends came in a case involving the civil commitment of sex offenders.

Now the court has decided to consider what to do about a woman hellbent on poisoning her best friend.

The woman, Carol A. Bond of Lansdale, Pa., was at first delighted to learn that her friend was pregnant. Ms. Bond’s mood darkened, though, when it emerged that her husband was the father. “I am going to make your life a living hell,” she said, according to her now-former friend, Myrlinda Haynes.

Ms. Bond, a microbiologist, certainly tried. On about two dozen occasions, she spread lethal chemicals on her friend’s car, mailbox and doorknob.

Ms. Haynes, who managed to escape serious injury, complained to the local police. They did not respond with particular vigor. After checking to see whether the white powder on her car was cocaine, they advised her to have it cleaned.

Federal postal inspectors were more helpful. They videotaped Ms. Bond stealing mail and putting poison in the muffler of Ms. Haynes’s car.

When it came time to charge Ms. Bond with a crime, federal prosecutors chose a novel theory. They indicted her not only for stealing mail, an obvious federal offense, but also for using unconventional weapons in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, a treaty aimed at terrorists and rogue states.

Had she been prosecuted in state court, Ms. Bond would most likely have faced a sentence of three months to two years, her lawyers say. In federal court, she got six years.

Ms. Bond’s argument on appeal was that Congress did not have the constitutional power to use a chemical weapons treaty to address a matter of a sort routinely handled by state authorities.

She relied on the 10th Amendment, the one so beloved by Tea Party activists. It says that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Now on to the First Amendment (via ATL). Go to the 2:20 mark... It's too good to pass up:

Monday news and notes

1. The jury in Judge Lenard's case dealing with the Chinese ammo resulted in a hung jury; the jury deliberated for over a week.

2. Justice Sotomayor really likes "12 Angry Men".

3. New York Times raises "age-old question" of jury service in the context of blogging: "Mr. Slutsky’s posts raised the age-old question of what jurors may or may not reveal about their jury service. They also highlighted a 21st-century nuance of dealing with jurors who use blogs and other forms of social media to share their existence with the world."

4. We're on a NYTimes roll this morning. Here's an editorial saying that states shouldn't block DNA tests. Duh.

5. And in a case close to my heart, the South Carolina Supreme Court will determine whether poker is a game of skill or luck:

Hold 'em, Dennis said, is determined more by "the relative skill of the player" than anything else. "A more skilled player will consistently beat a less skilled player, and a player's skill can be improved over time through study and practice," he added.
Because of that skill factor, Dennis said he expected his ruling would survive the court's "dominate factor test" that the justices have relied on when evaluating whether players' ability matters -- versus chance -- in determining the legality of games. Dennis also called the state's anti- gambling laws as applied to the case "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad."
Dennis' opinion tossed out the convictions of five players who had been arrested in the police raid but opted to fight the charges.
McMaster appealed, saying the judge went too far by declaring one gambling game to be more skill-oriented than another.
"In the General Assembly's view, the ills resulting from games played for money does not depend upon the particular game or the nature in which it was played," he said.

Of course there is skill involved in the game. The defense has the better of this argument by a long shot. And why are the police arresting card players? Sheesh.

The average teenager now sends 3,339 texts per month.

In keeping with the off-blog news for the week, check out this CNN article on texting:

If you needed more proof that texting is on the rise, here's a stat for you: the average teenager sends over 3,000 texts per month. That's more than six texts per waking hour.
According to a new study from Nielsen, our society has gone mad with texting, data usage and app downloads. Nielsen analyzed the mobile data habits of over 60,000 mobile subscribers and surveyed over 3,000 teens during April, May and June of this year. The numbers they came up with are astounding.
The number of texts being sent is on the rise, especially among teenagers age 13 to 17. According to Nielsen, the average teenager now sends 3,339 texts per month.
There's more, though: teen females send an incredible 4,050 text per month, while teen males send an average of 2,539 texts. Teens are sending 8 percent more texts than they were this time last year.
Other age groups don't even come close, either; the average 18 to 24-year-old sends "only" 1,630 texts per month. The average only drops with other age groups. However, in every age bracket, the number of texts sent has increased when compared to last year. Texting is a more important means of communication than ever.

Thank goodness we haven't gotten to the point where we are texting with opposing counsel...

Ethical question of the day: Should judges be able to do stand-up comedy when they aren't on the bench? New Jersey says no:

A judge walks into a bar and launches into a stand-up routine. The bartender asks, "Is this a joke?" The judge says, "Let me check with the Advisory Committee on Extrajudicial Activities."
That's not exactly how South Hackensack, N.J., Judge Vincenzo Sicari -- alias comic "Vince August" -- got into an ethics pickle. But he did make the inquiry, and the outcome wasn't so funny: The panel that regulates New Jersey municipal judges' moonlighting said he can't decide cases by day and do shtick by night.
Sicari, though his term on the bench ends Dec. 31, isn't taking the ultimatum lying down. He's asked the state Supreme Court for review, and the justices on Oct. 8 agreed to hear the case, In the Matter of Opinion No. 12-08 of the Supreme Court Committee on Extrajudicial Activities, A-23-10.

What are the odds?

Check out this USA Today article:

Unlike many moms, Barbara Soper never gets her kids' birthdays confused. That's because her first was born on Aug, 8, 2008, her second on Sept. 9, 2009 and her most recent on Oct. 10, 2010.

Yes, that's 8-8-08, 9-9-09 and 10-10-10.

1 in a billion, right? Not so fast:

While the dates might seem "incredibly rare," they're really not. Such a lineup can only happen in the first 12 years of the century and at least 10 months apart, says Shannon McWeeney, a professor of biostatistics at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.
"Given that the first birth occurred in that window, the probability is not as astronomical as you might be compelled to think," she says.In fact, it's not that high a number at all, says Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley. "The 'chance' you get depends on the assumptions you make," he says. One set of assumptions gives a chance of about 1 in 50 million. More realistic assumptions — including allowing at least 11 months between births — increases it to about 1 in 2,500. Since thousands of women in the United States had kids in 2008, 2009 and 2010, this suddenly seems a little less extraordinary. But humans "like to look for patterns, to make sense of things" he says.For the Sopers, three is simply their lucky number — "we don't have any more planned," says Barbara.

What does this have to do with the SDFLA? I couldn't really figure that out either. But it's a neat story. So there.

Tuesday morning

1. Rumpole and the NYTimes take on Supreme Court specialists. I usually really like Adam Liptak, but I think he (and Rumpole) got this one all wrong. Take the example they cite in the lead to the article:

Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, deported to Mexico, had run out of options. A federal appeals court said he could not return to the United States to live with his American wife and son. And his lawyer did not have the expertise or money to pursue the case further.

Then the cavalry arrived. Leading lawyers from around the country, sensing that the case was one of the rare ones that might reach the Supreme Court, called to offer free help. Mr. Fernandez-Vargas’s immigration lawyer was delighted, and he chose a lawyer from a prominent firm here.

But there was a catch, and then a controversy. The catch was that the Washington lawyer, David M. Gossett, would take the case only if he could argue before the Supreme Court himself.

The controversy was that groups representing immigrants were furious, suspicious of the new lawyer’s interest in the case and fearful of a Supreme Court ruling that would curtail the rights of immigrants nationwide.

Indeed, Mr. Gossett faced a barrage of hostile questions from the justices, and in June 2006 the court ruled against his client, 8 to 1. The ruling wiped out decisions in much of the nation — notably from the federal appeals court in California — that had favored immigrants.

So let me get this straight -- Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, having lost and waiting to get deported after serving a federal prison sentence, should not fight his case and lay down because it might not be good for others. Please. That's not how our adversary system works. Gossett was fighting for his client and was able to get cert granted! Instead of being villified by immigration groups and a front page article in the New York Times, he should be getting kudos.

This morning the Court will hear argument on whether vaccine makers should have immunity:
At issue is whether a no-fault system established by Congress about 25 years ago to compensate children and others injured by commonly used vaccines should protect manufacturers from virtually all product liability lawsuits. The law was an effort to strike a balance between the need to provide care for those injured by vaccines, some of them severely, and the need to protect manufacturers from undue litigation.

Under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, such claims typically proceed through an alternative legal system known as “vaccine court.” Under that system, a person is compensated if their injury is among those officially recognized as caused by a vaccine. That person, or their parents, can choose to reject that award and sue the vaccine’s manufacturer, but they then face severe legal hurdles created by law to deter such actions.

The case before the Supreme Court is not related to autism. But the biggest effect of the court’s ruling, lawyers said, will be on hundreds of pending lawsuits that contend a link exists between childhood vaccines and autism. Repeated scientific studies have found no such connection.

In other news, everyone is just SHOCKED about the Judge Jack Camp story.

And Justice Kagan is sporting conservative robes.

10 years for Villegas (Scott Rothstein's "right hand")

That sentence was much higher than the government's recommendation (7 years) and the defense's (home confinement). You all know my feelings on this -- a judge should almost never go above a prosecutor's recommended sentence. That should be the ceiling in our adversary system. What do you all think?

UPDATE -- maybe I spoke too soon about the sentence. Here's Curt Anderson on the details of the hearing:

But Debra Villegas, 43, will probably serve far less time because of her extensive cooperation with prosecutors, who said it was likely they would seek a sentence reduction later. U.S. District Judge William Zloch also took the unusual step of allowing Villegas to remain free until June 24, 2011, so she can assist in the ongoing investigation of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler firm.

Other off-the-chart sentences are being handed out. SFLawyers covers one here, where "the kingdom of God" was invoked.

The Daily Business Review has a fancy new website. It looks really good and is much more user friendly. Go check it out.

Time for the weekend. I need to go figure out my pick against Rump.