Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Judiciary -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (204)	4/18/2006 12:01:50 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 817

Democracy by Decree What happens when courts run schools and prisons and transit authorities and . . . Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT Miracles do happen. In Los Angeles last week a state judge lifted a consent decree issued in 1991 after parents filed a lawsuit claiming that public schools in poor neighborhoods had too few experienced teachers. The court has since ordered the school district to spend an average of $11 million a year on teacher training in certain schools. And now, almost 15 years later, the judge has finally declared herself satisfied and declined to extend the decree for another five years. Other locales aren't so lucky. Consent decrees are judicial decrees that enforce agreements between state and local governments and the parties suing them. But such decrees have proliferated to the extent that judges are micromanaging many public institutions in the name of protecting "rights." And they're costing taxpayers money and infringing on the right to self-government. In New York, a 1974 federal consent decree has mandated bilingual education in the city's schools for more than 30 years--even though many parents want no part of it. In Tennessee, a federal consent decree from 1979 prevents the state from requiring generic, rather than brand-name, drugs for Medicaid patients despite the fact that this is standard practice for many private drug plans and other state Medicaid programs. And in Los Angeles, a 1996 consent decree has forced the Metropolitan Transit Authority to spend 47% of its budget on city buses no matter what the MTA deems to be its priorities. New York Law professors David Schoenbrod and Ross Sandler call this "democracy by decree," or the process by which public-policy decisions are taken out of the hands of elected legislators and left to an unelected judiciary. Their 2002 book of that name is the inspiration for legislation introduced in the Senate last month that would limit the use of federal consent decrees. The legislation's sponsors are Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander and Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor. It's no coincidence that both Senators were once state officials. "I'm looking at this as a former Governor," says Mr. Alexander. "The idea is to try to let those who are elected make policy unencumbered by courts." Mr. Pryor is a former Arkansas Attorney General. Similar legislation is pending in the House. Consent decrees can be a huge burden on state and local officials. They sometimes last for decades, long after the officials who agreed to them have left office. Newly elected officials often find themselves locked in by the decrees, unable to put in place policies they were elected to implement. Outgoing officials have been known to sign their names to such decrees in an effort to force their successors to go along with policies they oppose. One part of the Alexander-Pryor solution is term limits--either four years for a decree, or the expiration of the term of the highest elected official who signed his name to it. Their legislation also sensibly shifts the burden of proof for modifying or ending the decree to plaintiffs from state and local governments. The legislation endorses the view of a unanimous Supreme Court, which in 2004 called for limiting decrees. It warned in Frew v. Hawkins that federal consent decrees could encroach on state and local power. They may "improperly deprive future officials of their designated and executive powers," the Court said. They may also lead "to federal court oversight of state programs for long periods of time even absent an ongoing violation of the law." There are federal consent decrees in force in all 50 states, with judges running prisons, schools, welfare agencies, health-care systems and more--based on the advice of the advocates who brought the original lawsuits. It's time to turn those jobs back to the elected lawmakers, and it's good to see at least someone in this ostensibly conservative Congress show some modesty about federal authority. opinionjournal.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (204)	8/14/2009 2:14:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 817

Judge sentences man to 6 months in jail for yawning 6-month term given by judge who has doled out the most charges of contempt in Will By Steve Schmadeke Tribune reporter August 10, 2009 Clifton Williams arrived at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet and sat in the fourth-floor courtroom where his cousin was pleading guilty to a felony drug charge. As Circuit Judge Daniel Rozak handed down the cousin's sentence -- 2 years' probation -- Williams, 33, stretched and let out a very ill-timed yawn. Williams' sentence? Six months in jail -- the maximum penalty for criminal contempt without a jury trial. The Richton Park man was locked up July 23 and will serve at least 21 days. "I was flabbergasted because I didn't realize a judge could do that," said Williams' father, Clifton Williams Sr. "It seems to me like a yawn is an involuntary action." Chuck Pelkie, a spokesman for the state's attorney's office, said the prosecutor in the courtroom that day told him that "it was not a simple yawn -- it was a loud and boisterous attempt to disrupt the proceedings." Jason Mayfield, the cousin of Williams who was pleading guilty at the time, said it was "not an outrageous yawn." A Tribune review of a decade's worth of contempt-of-court charges reveals that Rozak jails people -- typically spectators whose cell phones go off or who scream or shout profanity during sentencing -- at a far higher rate than any other judge in the county. There are now 30 judges in the 12th Judicial Circuit, but since 1999, Rozak has brought more than a third of all the contempt charges, records show. And while it is not uncommon for judges to jail people for ignoring subpoenas or court orders or appearing in court drunk or under the influence of drugs, Rozak's charges tend to involve behavior that would not otherwise be criminal. Judges have broad discretion under the law, which defines contempt as acts that embarrass, hinder or obstruct the court in its administration of justice or lessen its authority or dignity. As long as the sentence is not longer than 6 months, there is no review of the case -- unless the offender appeals to the judge or a higher court. "We want judges to be able to manage the courtroom ... but we have some concern that when the contempt is personal, judges might react too harshly," said University of Chicago law professor Adam Samaha. "Contempt that happens right in the judge's face is likely to trigger an emotional reaction."... chicagotribune.com cato-at-liberty.org