Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Will the Dems address federal judges in tonight's debate?

Trump has placed an emphasis on remaking the federal judiciary and he has been extremely successful. Obama (and Clinton) never had such an emphasis. And the Democratic candidates so far have barely mentioned the judiciary in their campaigns and debates. Hopefully it will be discussed tonight.

Others, however, have been pressing for a new narrative on judging. Clark Neily of Cato has called for a moratorium on appointing prosecutors to the bench.
Given the government’s vast resources, nearly every court case pitting a lone citizen against the state represents a David-versus-Goliath fight for justice. To further stack the deck with judges who are far more likely to have earned their spurs representing Goliath than David is unfair to individual litigants and a bad look for the justice system as a whole.

Fortunately, the solution is simple: a temporary moratorium on nominating former prosecutors to the bench and a strong preference for lawyers with substantial experience representing individuals against the government in criminal and civil cases. If that proposal seems extreme, consider the image of a federal judiciary in which former public defenders outnumbered prosecutors 4 to 1. Notwithstanding the transformative effect that would have on our deeply dysfunctional criminal justice system, not to mention the Bill of Rights, it’s probably not a good idea. But neither is it wise to continue doing nothing while the imbalance runs the other way.

It is perfectly understandable that current government officials wish to stock the courts with former government advocates. But it’s a bad deal for the rest of us and a doubtful way to ensure equal justice under law.

And Demand Justice has put out its own Supreme Court shortlist (as Trump did when he was a candidate) since no Dem has done so. There are no Floridians on the list, and it's not a realistic list in my view (with only 2 Circuit judges), but it's a conversation starter.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nobody cares about diversity of experience. Its all about diversity of skin color, except if you're Asian.

Anonymous said...

7:51
Yes. Of Course. You can tell by all the Asian Americans on the federal bench.

Anonymous said...

As a purportedly progressive judge one told me "Prosecutors know the law better." I asked whether they really knew the law better or whether the court's decisions favored their positions. Silence. Good cross I thought to myself.

Anonymous said...

I think the point of the list is that it's not realistic - given the status quo.

Anonymous said...

In my experience, a judge's former job title has little to do with his or her performance on the bench. Some prosecutors make very good judges and some defense attorneys don't. Just give me someone who likes the law, good lawyering, and a fair fight. That's all. I couldn't care lees what they did in a past life.

Anonymous said...

1:23 you're missing the point.

Anonymous said...

Seems like Sale is out. Who knows why. But shame on him for signing his name to a letter seeking to undermine an inquiry authorized by the Constitution...with no supporting arguments whatsoever. Other than trying to provide a sound bite for the president in his efforts to undermine Congress, and further destabilize our government, that sentence serves no point. I do hope that history is unkind to those who have supported efforts to undermine our governments legitimate branches and functions.