National Review on the GMU Law and Economics Center and Judicial Ethics:
The National Review discusses the controversy over the George Mason Law and Economics Center and judicial ethics. Obviously, I'm not a completely unbiased observer. But in truth the LEC conferences for judges are no different from events sponsored by a wide variety of other groups, both liberal and conservative.
The editorial argues that the ethical rules are ethical because they are the rules. "George Mason has carefully structured its programs to comply with judicial-ethics guidelines, and a federal ethics panel has specifically approved their structure." So what? That doesn't answer the question as to whether the rules permit sleazy behavior.
Corporations don't give to these programs out of the goodness of their heart. They do so because they want to obtain an advantage in litigation. Also, corporations do not hide their names, as NRO argues, "to eliminate any risk that attending judges could be partial towards these supporters[,]", they do so to avoid public criticism and scrutiny.
We should give judges a training budget and ban them from receiving the freebies. No government employee should accept a trip to "nice locations . . . , and [] lodging and meals . . . , as well as . . . travel expenses (up to $500)[.]" Judges can and should pay their own way with their own budget.
What George Mason is doing is probably legal, but that just shows that current ethics rules permit sleazy behavior.
Free wouldn't be a problem if it were free for all. But it's a special benefit just for judges.
It's also more than free. The sponsors actually pay the judges to attend in the form of food, travel, accommodations, and expense money. One way to remove the sleaze would be to make it free to the public and to require everyone to pay their own expenses.
It is a problem that it's funded (even in part) by people doing business before the judges. It doesn't matter whether that's funding from corporations or the ACLU.
Any low-level government employee learns that we shouldn't accept freebies from people doing business with our government. It's disgusting that higher-level officials (making many multiples of the salary of lower-level employees) think it's OK to accept gifts that would get those at the bottom of the system fired or prosecuted. Also, don't discount the bad-example effect this has on the rest of government.
And yes, as I explained above, hidden sponsor names are a problem. They allow corporations to evade responsibility for the courses they sponsor.
I'm not calling for an end to seminars for judges. I'm just saying that the sponsors should disclose their interests, that the seminars (if free) should be open to non-judges, and that the judges should have a training budget so that they can pay their own way. To a certain degree, my proposal would make the seminars more economically feasible because the sponsors could spend their money on teaching instead of on travel, accommodations and expense money.
As for keeping the identity of donors confidential, and keeping them wholly away from the judges, can anyone seriously suggest that this is troubling? You want them to schmooze with the judges, the way lobbyists do with Congressmen? That's supposed to be the ethical thing to do? It's a good deal harder to show appreciation for a donor if you don't know his name.
Does it matter that the Mason lecturers are the leading scholars anywhere, that its readings are posted on its web site, that no one has or could have a problem with them, that people like Larry Kramer, Gordon Wood, John Searle, David Bromwich, Jasper Griffin, Joe Ellis, Cass Sunstein and Marcia Angell lecture for it, that without Mason lecturers the NYRB would have trouble publishing, that lecturers are asked to stay away from hot button topics, that global warming, environmental issues, asbestosis, abortion, tobacco, etc. are simply not mentioned in Mason programs, that no judge has ever complained of the content of the programs or lectures? Does it matter that the programs are academically intensive, that there are no entertainment or hospitality events? Does it matter that judges such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg have praised our programs? And does it matter that Mason programs this year are on subjects as varied as Renaissance Humanism, David Hume, Abraham Lincoln, and the principles of microeconomics? Because if none of that matters, the complaints can be made only by bitter ideologues blinded by an ignorance of or animus against the life of the mind.
Frank Buckley
Foundation Professor and Associate Dean
George Mason School of Law
I'd say comments come from "bitter ideologues blinded by an ignorance of or animus against the life of the mind" when they have nothing to do with the criticism offered.
To your questions. I don't complain about the content of the courses or the source of the funding. I specifically said my objection would be the same whether the sponsor was a corporation or the ACLU.
Your opera example is on point. Judges can buy tickets to see the opera just like they can pay their own way to your seminar. If the opera gave freebies to judges like you do, then I'd have the same complaint.
Maybe there are no special hospitality areas, but you do pay for a nice hotel in a nice location, good food, and travel. That’s still a gift to a public official.
My criticism is not that your program exists. It’s not about the content. It's about who pays. The judges should get a government training budget and pay their own way.
Government officials should not get freebies that are unavailable to the general public. The fact that many in Washington disagree with that shows why so much of the country believes politicians (and their DC hangers-on) are so unethical.
The fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg likes the program doesn't prove anything. Too many government officials, including judges and Supreme Court justices, think they are entitled to freebies.
Then there’s Public Defender’s suggestion that everyone should be invited to the programs. Let’s see. We’ve seen at our programs four members of the US Supreme Court, five members of the Israeli Supreme Court, Supreme Court justices from several other countries, law deans (from such schools as Harvard and Stanford). But we didn’t invite poor little Public Defender. My bad. All I can say is that there is a public interest in having a highly educated judiciary, and that I don’t think that argument works very well with a self-important chap who hides behind a pompous pseudonym.
As to paying for the trips, if judges can't get government money to fund their trips, they can fund them themselves. If you don't see why it's sleazy to give government employees freebies because of their position, you've been living in D.C. for too long.
To your point that your corporate donors are keeping their names secret to avoid conflicts, you provide no evidence other than your word. But corporations have a long history of using front groups to hide their political agenda (yes, some liberal groups have hidden behind facades, too). I just don't believe you
Your resort to ad hominem attacks in lieu of reasoned arguments doesn't speak highly of your ability to put on a quality debate, or of the standards George Mason has for choosing its faculty. Is this how you train lawyers to argue?
And "public_defender" is a "pompous pseudonym"? That doesn't even make sense.
Then I read Frank's posts. See supra.
i don't see how an uninformed judiciary is a good thing-- i'm glad that some persons are willing to keep judges abreast on important matters.
and, judges aren't 5 year olds. if a judge thinks the lecture is bunk, i'm sure that he's a big boy and can make up his own mind. the thought that these judges are being "brainwashed" by the prospect of a free hotel room and a pillow mint is laughable. if judges were so easily persuaded, no one would have to spend millions on litigation.
Who are you arguing against? And why can't judges pay their own way?
and why can't judges pay their own way? would YOU want to spend your own money on an academic lecture? something tells me that people would rather go on vacation with their family then spend hundreds on flights and hotel rooms for the purpose of professional development.
Who's arguing against "informed judiciary."
If the seminars are only worthwhile if they're free, how valuable are they? And I did spend a ton of my own money on academic lectures. It was called law school.
Plus, private practice attorneys making far, far less than federal judges (and with far less job security) manage to pay their own way to seminars.
I, too, thought that some of the criticism of the program was off base and unfair. There's nothing wrong with seminars, even biased ones. My objections are that it's a gift to judges and that the corporate supporters hide behind a wall of secrecy.
But the only defenses I've read of the program rely on shrill ad hominem attacks (see Professor Frank Buckley, above), name dropping (Professor Buckley and NRO), or sound bites masquerading as argument (NRO).
Is there a thoughtful defense of the program somewhere, or is the program as mindlessly right wing as its defenders who've appeared in this post?