Random Quote

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The ABA and judicial qualifications.

This story in the Hartford Courant via How Appealing illustrates why I find little credibility in the American Bar Association's review process for judicial nominees to the federal bench. Actually, I shouldn't limit my criticism to the ABA. I have the same problem with the way most state and local bar associations evaluate nominees/candidates for judicial positions on state courts (I am not ungrateful. The bar associations in my state have been pretty good to me over the years but this is a philosophical rant).

My problem is simply that no one knows what the criteria are by which nominees/candidates are measured by the bar associations. Note the quote in the Courant article from the chairman of the ABA's review committee, Roberta D. Liebenberg. "Liebenberg said the evaluation process is confidential and would not say what led to the revised rating."

The ABA's own brochure on the way it evaluates nominees to federal judgeships describes their process this way:
The circuit member examines the legal writings of the nominee,
conducts research about the nominee in both the print and electronic media and identifies and reviews legal and non-legal publications, speeches and other writings by and about the nominee. The investigator also personally conducts extensive confidential interviews with individuals likely to have information regarding the integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament of the nominee, including, where pertinent, federal and state judges, practicing lawyers in both private and government service, law school professors and deans, legal services and public interest lawyers, representatives of professional legal organizations, community leaders and others who are in a position to evaluate the nominee’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament....

To merit a rating of “Well Qualified,” the nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community; have outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience and the highest reputation for integrity; and either demonstrate or exhibit the capacity for judicial temperament. The rating of “Qualified” means that the nominee meets the Committee’s very high standards with respect to integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament and that the Committee believes that the nominee will be able to perform satisfactorily all of the duties and responsibilities required by the high office of a federal judge.

When a nominee is found “Not Qualified,” the Committee, based on its investigation, has determined that the nominee does not meet the Committee’s standards with regard to professional competence, judicial temperament or integrity.

Note that there are no specific or objective benchmarks that a nominee must meet to achieve a "Qualified" or "Well Qualified" rating. In essence, the ABA's process combines a poll of a candidate's popularity among his/her peers with a subjective evaluation by committee members of how such peer reviews equal "qualifications." The result of course is a complete lack of consistency in what the words "Not Qualified," "Qualified" or "Well Qualified" mean.

Please don't get me wrong, the ABA and every other bar association in the land can say what they please about who they do or don't want on the bench. After all, this is America where anyone, especially lawyers, can express an opinion without regard to consistency or intellectual honesty. My point is simply that bar associations should feel free to say that they like/respect/prefer to deal with whoever like, respect or prefer to deal with the most but they shouldn't label judicial nominees or candidates as meeting some standard when no one knows what that standard means in any objective sense.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Would this ad make you run out and buy an Ipod?

If this is for real, Steve Jobs needs to find a new ad agency!

Monday, February 26, 2007

Why it isn't a good idea to sell porn to the police chief's teenage daughter.

On Friday, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed a conviction against John Haltom, owner of "Dr. John's Lingerie and Novelty [you can imagine what kind] Store," for dealing in material harmful to a minor.

Haltom had sold the video "Getting Wet, the Last Howl" to a customer who turned out to be the police chief's 17-year-old daughter.

My favorite line from the opinion:

"Finally, Mr. Haltom attempts to stiffen his arguments with an appeal to constitutional law."

Who says appellate judges don't have a sense of humor.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

A Lawyer Walks into a Bar ....


Via WSJ Law Blog comes word that a documentary film is in the works which follows six people sitting for the California Bar Exam.

California is generally regarded as having the toughest bar exam in the land. Among those who have failed are two governors (Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson), the Mayor of Los Angeles (Antonio R. Villaraigosa), and the Dean of the Stanford Law School ( Kathleen Sullivan).

One of the "stars" of the film is Donald Baumeister, who has taken and failed the California bar no less than 41 times and is shown in the movie gearing up for attempt number42. Apparently, this time around, he actually plans to study for it.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Final Justice


I have been away for awhile and I have really missed blogging. I have a little more breathing room now and so I am back, albeit with less frequency than when I began this blog.

Anyway, at Oyez.org, I happened upon a couple of Google map files that show the final resting places of Supreme Court Justices. There are separate maps for Justices A-L and Justices M-Z.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Mon Dieu! The language of love, wine and food may become the language of law. Merde!

It seems the Director of the Committee for the Language of European Law has proposed that all European legal proceedings be conducted in French. He argues that "All languages are equal and all the national sensitivities are duly protected. However, as regards the interpretation of texts it is better to be certain what we are writing. The Italian language is the language of song, German is good for philosophy and English for poetry. French is best at precision, it has a rigour to it. It is the safest language for legal purposes...The language of Montesquieu is unbeatable."

If you are something of a bon vivant, you know that French has long been the language of haute cuisine. We go to the bistro for hors d'oeuvres and an entrée, à la carte, wish one another bon appetit, and wonder whether the plat du jour of chicken à la king would be more piquant with a soupçon of bouquet garni. But food is only the tip of the iceberg. The French have pulled off a tour de force of verbal imperialism, claiming carte blanche to rewrite the entire English language, and I don't see any chance of a rapprochement unless we isolate the whole French nation behind a linguistic cordon sanitaire.

First food and now law.
Sacré bleu!