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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (54269)	6/12/2006 10:48:12 PM
From: sandintoes	Respond to of 59480

This is nothing new from a Jimmy Carter crooked judge appointee. FROM THE HEARTLAND Disorder in the Court Judicial shenanigans mar an affirmative-action case. Will Congress investigate? BY THOMAS J. BRAY Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:01 a.m. Rumors in Washington has it that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings into the events surrounding the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 5-4 decision upholding the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program. In a rare break with judicial comity, two judges in the court publicly questioned the procedures that Chief Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter appointee, had set out in the case. A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee didn't return calls asking for comment. But in the continuing war over control of the judiciary now taking place in the Democratic-controlled Senate, it wouldn't be surprising if House Republicans sensed a ripe target in the Sixth Circuit--which is down to only eight of its 16 authorized active judges. (One judge retired after participating in the Michigan case.) The Senate so far has scheduled hearings for only one of President Bush's nominations to the court, the fourth busiest of the nation's 13 federal appeals courts. Some observers also believe the Michigan case was part of a disturbing pattern at the Sixth Circuit. Judge Martin faced similar allegations of high-handed behavior in a case last year in which liberal-leaning judges sought to block the execution of an Ohio prisoner convicted of murdering a fellow inmate. After a three-judge panel formed by a blind draw refused to stay the sentence, Judge Martin ordered a hearing by the full court, allegedly giving members of the original panel only a few hours' notice. It was "the most bizarre process this court has ever seen," protested Judge Richard Suhrheinrich--since retired--in a written opinion at the time. Eyebrows also rose this year when the chief judge landed on several judicial panels reviewing legislative redistricting processes in the circuit, which includes Kentucky and Tennessee as well as Michigan and Ohio. Two of the panels consisted entirely of Democratic appointees, reversing a longstanding practice of ensuring that at least one appointee from each party would participate in these politically charged cases. In fairness, the Michigan redistricting panel, which included Judge Martin, ultimately threw out the Democratic challenge to a plan devised by the state's Republican-dominated government. And the Ohio execution ultimately was allowed to go forward despite last-minute claims of new evidence (which, it became clear, had been available to the defendants' lawyers all along). And Judge Martin's propensity for serving on panels hearing sensitive cases might be explained by the depleted ranks of the Sixth Circuit. "Those who complain should talk to their U.S. senators," Judge Martin told me last month when I called to ask about the status of the redistricting cases. But it is rare for sitting judges, even those with roots in a different party, to go public with their grievances over court procedures. In order to maintain public confidence, judges tend to put a collegial face on even the bitterest disagreements. But so poisonous has the atmosphere on the Sixth Circuit become, according to court sources, that some of the judges simply refuse to talk to each other. The latest rupture came to public attention in the dissent Judge Danny Boggs, a Reagan appointee, in the University of Michigan case. Judge Boggs dissented on the substance of the case, ridiculing the majority's pretense that the university's racial preferences amounted only to a "plus" factor as opposed to an unconstitutional quota. But the real bombshell was a "procedural appendix" that he attached to his dissent, making clear his belief that the chief judge had improperly assigned himself to a three-judge panel hearing the case, then failed to disclose for three months a request by the plaintiff for an en banc hearing by the full court. During that time, two of the court's more conservative judges took "senior status," retiring from the pool of active judges who to hear any new en banc cases, and tipping the balance of power on the court. Judge Karen Nelson Moore, in an opinion concurring with the court's majority, defended Judge Martin's actions, claiming they were consistent with court policy laid down the prior year and in any case wouldn't have changed the outcome of the case. Moreover, she asserted the Boggs revelations would have the effect of shaking "public confidence" in the courts and thus were "nothing short of shameful." But several sources close to the court say the new policy of withholding en banc petitions until briefs were fully filed was news to them. And sweeping the issue under the rug seems a poor way of upholding public confidence. Nor was this the first hint that the University of Michigan case might be the object of unusual treatment. "Affirmative action cases seem to bring out the worst in our courts," observes a lawyer close to the Michigan cases. Earlier, Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the federal District Court in Detroit tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw--and who was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action--and consolidate it with a similar suit against the university's undergraduate admissions practice, which Judge Patrick Duggan was hearing. The chief judge dropped that effort was dropped after the judge hearing the law school complaint went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed "the highly irregular" effort of the chief judge. Judge Duggan ruled in favor of the undergraduate racial preferences, while Judge Freedman ruled against the law school preferences. A House hearing into the goings-on at the Sixth Circuit may have a disciplining effect, though Democrats and the liberal media are likely to dismiss it as a partisan witch hunt. An investigation by the federal judicial system's administrative office might be preferable. But at the very least, Sixth Circuit procedures could use some brushing up. Procedure isn't a technical issue; it lies at the heart of Anglo-Saxon law and the perception that justice is being done. As for the broader issue of Mr. Bush's judicial appointments, Sen. Charles Schumer and his colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been loudly defending their refusal to hold hearings on Bush nominees who are supposedly outside the "mainstream." But is it "mainstream" to fiddle with procedures that guarantee a fair hearing to all parties appearing before a court? Maybe the Senate should take a look at the Sixth Circuit as well. Mr. Bray is a staff columnist at the Detroit News. His OpinionJournal.com column appears Tuesdays. Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. opinionjournal.com