From now on, federal judges will only be allowed to read blogs sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center, a government organization.
Well, not quite, but pending legislation does aim to prevent federal judges from attending seminars put on by George Mason's Law School's Law and Economics Center, among other educational centers. According to John Fund, who provides a detailed critique, the bill "would flatly ban federal judges from attending anything other than a government-sponsored program" [but see update beow].
If so, why let federal judges read the Volokh Conspiracy (and I know several prominent federal appellate judges who do)? After all, though most of us conspirators teach at state schools, we have not been vetted by the FJC. Three of us even teach at George Mason, and receive Summer research funding from the LEC. And as for the red herring of "corporate funding" (the LEC, for example, gets less than 10% of its funding from corporations, and does not disclose the funders, so there will be no question of quid pro quo), have you noticed that the VC carries ads? Sure, the VC doesn't provide transportation or accommodations, but we do provide the best legal commentary on the web for free. Given the implicit value of our time, this is much more valuable than an off-season stay at a resort. And we don't even demand that judges spend many hours doing background reading, unlike the LEC!
This whole non-issue has been stirred up by Doug Kendall's Soros-funded Community Rights Council. Recall that Kendall filed an ethics complaint against Sixth Circuit Judge Danny Boggs for serving on the board of FREE, a Montana-based free market environmentalist group that, among other things, runs education seminars for federal judges. Chief Judge Loken rejected the complaint, and wrote, "Reasonable people, unlike the complainant, do not presume a lack of integrity and impartiality from a judge's association with legitimate judicial education, no matter how controversial." And later (alluding also to related allegations against D.C. Circuit Judge Doug Ginsburg): "there is no factual foundation to support an inference of wrongdoing by anyone ... Rather these allegations typify the character assassination that is all too common in our nation's capital.... By use of this tactic, it is the complainant who is undermining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, not the judges complained of."
UPDATE: Tim Dowling from the CRC writes to point out that under the proposed legislation, federal judges would be able to attend (and receive travel reimbursements for) any "CLE sponsored by any bar association, any judicial association (including the National Judicial College and Federal Judicial Center), subject-matter bar associations, and the ABA's Judicial Division." Makes sense, because we all know that bar associations only have the public interest in mind, don't serve the cause of any particular interest group (such as attorneys...), and never take positions on controversial issues, right? And the Federal Judicial Center has money that grows on trees, and therefore is not susceptible to political pressure because Congress provides no funding, right? Well, anyway, we all know that giving government and self-serving interest groups a monopoly over any sort of education is the way to achieve high quality, apolitical, effective education.
Snarkiness aside, I'm puzzled by the inclusion of the NJC in the exemptions, given that it's a private 501(C)(3) organization that accepts donations from private sources, just like, say, the LEC. Among its donors are Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, and a couple of tort reform groups. Sounds to me like the CRC is not standing for any principle here other than wanting to shut down the LEC and FREE. [Besides receiving funding from Congress, the FJC also receives funding from private, and at times highly ideological sources, e.g., the Ford Foundation, which it actively solicits.]
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on the Judicial Education Bill:
- The Strange Effort to Limit Judicial Education:
- Bill Aims to Prevent Federal Judges from Reading the Volokh Conspiracy:
They have their clerks read them, summarize them, and make a reccomendation.
The travel gifts associated with these judicial seminars raise serious ethics issues, the public discussion of which is not enhanced by the snark and hyperbole spewed by you and John Fund. In fact, the ethical questions are so serious that every federal executive branch attorney (and indeed every federal executive branch employee) is prohibited from personally accepting these travel gifts, and I know of no instance in which U.S. DOJ or any other federal agency has accepted reimbursement of travel expenses to allow an agency employee to attend seminars that raise similar ethics issues. The federal judiciary, too, recently recognized the ethics issues raised by these seminars, and the travel gifts associated with them, by reforming its disclosure requirements for these trips.
Under the Kyl amendment, judges would remain free to accept travel reimbursement for seminars and other CLE sponsored by any bar association, any judicial association (including the National Judicial College and Federal Judicial Center), subject-matter bar associations, and the ABA's Judicial Division. And, of course, you could continue to inform federal judges of your views in the marketplace of ideas through your blogs, books, and scholarly writings, and judges of course would remain free to consume those ideas as they see fit. Judges could even attend the George Mason seminars if they paid their own way. We do object when private groups try to skew the marketplace of ideas by offering public servants free gifts of travel to Hilton Head, Amelia Island, Bozeman, and other resort locations that are worth thousands of dollars as an inducement to consume those ideas. In addition, several seminars have raised unique ethics issues that concerned then-pending litigation (some of which are discussed here), which you rather casually ignore.
I won’t be able to track this thread today. So go ahead and take the last word. But, as Orin recently suggested, you might consider using thoughtful arguments and a presumption of good faith, rather than silly headlines and less-than-generous characterizations of the other side's position.
Tim Dowling, Community Rights Counsel
If this be snark, gentlemen, let us make the most of it.
Or maybe lied a little, for those who think that's a dsitinction with a difference.
Judges SHOULD be exposed, frequently, to academic thoughts and trends. I find that much more important than having them exposed to the much more mundane world of the bar associations. I see much more danger in judges being paid to attend state bar association seminars then in attending conferences sponsored by institutions of higher education.
Actually, "reasonable people" would presume a lack of impartiality from a judge who is drawn to and actively supports extremely controversial causes.
I don't know what kind of drugged Kool-Aid Judge Loken is on. This is pretty much a no-brainer.
And Tim -- the allegations of corruption are far less serious than those of development/zoning boards and developers that you guys laud, if not bolster and defend, on a regular basis. It takes a special type of gall to defend the cozy ties between developers and zoning boards while making a hullabaloo about Judges exposing themselves to new ideas in an academic setting without prior government approval.
By your standard, Judge Reinhardt on the Ninth should be disqualified regularly for his close personal ties to the ACLU--since his wife is executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. Oh wait, he isn't--conflicts like that aren't bad if it is a liberal who has them--only conservative judges can be ethically challenged.
Right, because there is no possible way that a funder could inform a judge of its donations if the LEC declines to list them on a web site.
There's a whole legal world out there beyond the libertarian blogosphere that thinks Kelo is consistent with past precedent and just not that remarkable.
A Soros group does not get this presumption. Most groups connected to felons don't get this presumption.
If you want a presumption of good faith, don't lie down with dogs.
1) It was suggested above that the appropriate remedy here is disclosure. For disclosure to be effective, someone needs to be able to act on the information disclosed (e.g., a voter considering whether to re-elect a public official). Federal judges have life tenure with salary protection. It is unclear what if any effect disclosure would have on them, assuming the underlying conduct disclosed remains legal.
2) Does anyone have a link to the text of the proposal on Thomas.LOC.gov or otherwise? That might be instructive. (I looked for it but couldn't find it.)
This is the same George Soros who helped round up Jews for relocation to concentration camps during WWII. The same George Soros who gave over $27 million to his personally owned PAC, MovOn.org during the last presidential election. The thoroughly anti-American George Soros is behind this [and who is behind George Soros is another interesting question].
Naturally, George Soros is eager to deny federal judges any information that might remind them of the original intent of the Constitution. These judges must be brought to heel. They must be made to understand that World Government - along with an ever-increasing World Tax - is what George Soros intends to impose on America. This is just one step along the way.
Well, not really - he didn't actually post that. But I thought that was the way to get you to read my comment - write something false in big letters up front, and then draw you in to whatever the hell I'm actually talking about. Which I have forgotten by this point, so never mind. [Insert snark here.]
And, I don't understand why the exemption for bar association reimbursement. The ABA has taken positions in favor of gun control and against the death penalty, so they are not free from ideological bias.
Amen to that. He's talkin' to you, Hudson Group.
Pardon the following semi-coherent ramblings... but WHAT? Is this not the first step in tyranny? How can we have a free society when people are prohibited from educating themselves as they please - especially the very people who are entrusted with acting as a check upon the sword and the purse? How do we expect impartial, fair judges when their information is fed to them from the other branches of government? Is it not the point of the First Amendment that the government cannot be trusted to disseminate information?
What are they going to do if a judge has the audacity to mosey his way into a Federalist Society event for some CLE? Impeach for lack of "good behaviour"?
/semi-coherent, post-finals rant
Soros is not a politician, I was referring to Kyl/Feingold.
It seems to me that whether judges can attend programs hosted by George Mason Law School's Law and Economics Center, while of natural interest to David, is less interesting than some of the other potential impacts of the bill. For example, law schools often invite Justices and Judges to speak. Is that covered by the law? How about invitations from ACS and FedSoc chapters? Several Justices teach in Europe over the summer -- is that now prohibited? If anyone knows, I would be very interested to find out the answers.
I think we're in big trouble if the presence of disagreement about a recent 5-4 constiutional decision merits someone being called a "long-time [expletive deleted]." Sheesh.
its S.1638 and HR3753 but these new restrictions are in an amendment proposed..(along with another proposal to limit judges pensions when they make over their slalery when they retire)..but the amendments aren't up on thomas yet...
it seems from the WSJ article that judges would not be prohibited from speaking at law schools..but that they wouldn't be able to receive any compensation from the schools beyond a small amount....thus making it harder for smaller schools to get them to come.
I'd like to add that there's internal reasons, too. Anyone who sayshas blown that presumption, IMO.
Smokey, I think probably he meant bipartisan, especially considering what it's responding to.
I was recently talked into a trial membership with the ABA. I lapsed right after law school some 17 years ago, when the dues starting going up. Now they charge some outrageous amount, and for that, I figured after reading several issues of their rag, I had much better uses for my money. Much better. They may be legally non-partisan, but you would only know it by checking their IRS status.
IEHO there are three issues here
1. Is lobbying judges an activity that should be encouraged? These seminars are straight out lobbying activities
2. Is there a way to prevent law school invitations to judges to speak being distorted by donors of the funds from becoming lobbying activities (assuming you think that a bad idea)
3. Since when is libeling George Soros an allowed activity on this blog (see Smokey)
You're absolutely right. [Huddles in corner scolding himself].
However, attending a conference that presents differing ideas on how a judge should decide cases is hardly "lobbying"--at least in the sense that the term is used with respect to a direct link between persuasion and specific results.
Frankly, if a federal judge can be bribed/influenced by an all-expense paid trip to Hilton Head or Honolulu or wherever, that person should not be on the bench in the first place.
The legislations seems like a step in the right direction.
Comparing it to banning reading material and blogs is just silly.
Eugene can pull it off sometimes, but David misses the mark here. He lures readers in with "BILL AIMS TO PREVENT FEDERAL JUDGES FROM READING VOLOKH CONSPIRACY." But that's not even remotely analogous to the real story. A properly analogous headline would read "Bill Aims to Prevent Federal Judges From Getting Paid To Read Volokh Conspiracy." By using this bait-and-switch tactic, David is misleading people into thinking that the proposal is a "flat ban" when it's clearly not.
N.B. I'm not in favor of the proposal. I just think this a cheesy and dishonest way of attacking it.
Soros was 14 when WWII ended, and ethnically is Jewish.
If Smokey's allegation (see block quote above) is true he is even more vicious and precocious than I would have imagined (sarcasm alert).
For the same reason that statutes preventing outright bribery in the judicial and executive branches is not a separation of powers issue.
You don't understand. The mere mention of Soros is enough to set wingnuts frothing at the mouth. If a conservative billionnaire spends millions advancing his political views that's just the normal political process. If it's Soros, it's part of some dark conspiracy.
The thoroughly anti-American George Soros is behind this [and who is behind George Soros is another interesting question].
Naturally, George Soros is eager to deny federal judges any information that might remind them of the original intent of the Constitution. These judges must be brought to heel. They must be made to understand that World Government - along with an ever-increasing World Tax - is what George Soros intends to impose on America. This is just one step along the way.
Geez. Wonder who Smokey thinks is behind Soros. Some secret council, no doubt.
Be all of this as it may, nobody helps his cause or convinces anyone with wild and obviously untrue statements.
Soros made a fortune in ways that many people consider disgusting, and now he is spending a lot of it. Libertarians (of which I am not one) should have no philosophical problem with his using large amounts of his property in a legal way to fight libertarian policies and principles.
It's not Soros' amendment.
And it's one thing, as you know, to dislike the way he made his fortune, and another to consider him the root of all evil.
I have no objection to the way he made his money, and neither should libertarians. Libertarians might also note that among the causes he has supported is drug legalization. He also supported democratic (small "d") movements in Eastern Europe. Why he provokes the reaction he does in some quarters - notably right-wing quarters - is an interesting question.
But this statute does not outlaw bribery -- and there is no evidence that there is any bribery going on. Why wouldn't an ABA seminar not be considered bribery as well? Again, by what authority may Congress regulate or prohibit professional conduct of a co-equal branch of government that does not involve otherwise criminal conduct? Isn't impeachment the proper avenue of Congressional action regarding judges who attend privately sponsored seminars that may constitute bribery, rather than legislatively prescribe what seminars judges may or may not attend?
One wonders how the Left chooses heroes like Soros. BDS certainly does strange things to people.
I never said it was bribery. I said it was undue influence, and I elaborate on this in my comments to Prof. Kerr's post.
The power to enact statutes. Have you noticed that Congress also funds courthouses and people who help out judges such as clerks and court reporters. They even determine the subject matter jurisdiction of all courts, except as stipulated in the Constitution.
The courts don't do these things, despite coequal status. The coequal status of the branches does not mean that they are independent of one another in terms of the ministerial aspect of the function of their offices.
You grossly distort what Soros did. The Nazis invaded Hungary when he was 13. In order to protect him, his father eventually placed him with a Gentile man who pretended that Soros was his son. This Gentile man was a civil servant and as such was required by the Nazi-controlled government to participate in the confiscation of Jewish property. He took Soros along with him. Soros was an involuntary spectator. He had no responsibility for the confiscations and did not profit from them.
Yes, Congress has the Constitutional power of the purse, and the Constitutional authority to set subject matter jurisdiction, but where does it have Constitutional authority to dictate the day-to-day activities of Article III judges absent a Constitutional grant of power? Just stating that Congress has power to pass statutes does not give them unlimited authority -- Congress cannot pass a statute ordering the President to negotiate a treaty or ordering the Supreme Court to rule a certain way or that they must work certain hours, have certain credentials or attend certain seminars. That is beyond Congress' Constitutional power regardless of what statutes it passes. For example, I don't believe that Congress has the power to alter the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules of Evidence (although I may be wrong about that).
Congress has the power to regulate judicial salary, and this arguably falls within this right.
Congress does not have the power to decrease judicial salaries, so that constitutionally, if this law is based on the congressional power to regulate salaries, it would have to be applicable only to future judicial appointments.
BTW-- why do you say that Congress can not require judges to work certain hours? Can you cite a case or secondary source?
You link to a post that talks about the democratic right, the lunatic left, and Rush Limbaugh as the most patriotic man in America (never mind the deferment during Vietnam), and expect to be taken seriously? On this blog? The enjoyable thing about this blog is that even those I almost constantly disagree with think for themselves.
Obviously you did not read the interview with Soros. Why don't you give it a try? You will see that Soros brags about helping himself to the holocaust loot.
Limbaugh?? You're deliberately trying to change the subject. The article reports on an interview with George Soros:Collaborating with the Nazis isn't pretty, and maybe it was due to the pressures of WWII. But plenty of Jews and gentiles did not collaborate. They are the heroes -- not your despicable George Soros.
By your standard, anyone who did work for the Nazis under threat of death was a collaborator, and this applies even to 13-year-olds. By this criterion even many concentration camp inmates were "collaborators." Indeed, had Soros refused he likely would have endangered his protector as well as himself.
How would you have behaved in Soros' situation? Wait, I know. You would have gotten your gun, killed a few Nazis, and made a bold getaway to fight as a partisan. In your dreams.
I know we are encouraged to assume commenters are arguing in good faith, but that's impossible here. The fact is your dislike of Soros has nothing to do with his actions during WWII and everything to do with the fact that you don't like his politics and the fact that he uses his wealth to advance his ideas. get over it.
You are mistaken. But that's OK, I understand. Anyway, to help out here, it is George Soros who is filled with venom and hatred -- for George W. Bush. He's certainly indicated as much on many occasions.
If you want to throw your lot in with the guy behind the sliming of Gen. Petraeus [Petraeus Betrayed Us], go right ahead. It's still a free country. However, since Gen. Petraeus arrived in-country, U.S. casualties have dropped by over 90% [source: this week's Economist]. Soros hates Petraeus because the C.O. makes America look good.
the portion you link to states that he helped to cart off loot. Not that he helped himself to it. Based on the other facts here (being placed with a non-Jewish person who did this as part of his government job), I would assume he was hauling it off for the Nazi Government to take and sell on the international market. This is what happened to a lot of confiscated loot. The Nazis were evil, but not idiots. They knew confiscated loot was worth money and would help prop up their government.
First, please spell my name correctly. It's not that hard.
Second, your own latest comment demonstrates that what I said was true. You don't care one iota what Soros did as a 13-year old in 1944. You don't like him because he doesn't like Bush. Too bad.
That's all. I'm done discussing this with you.
Sorry about the misspelling of your name. It was not intentional.
Also, sorry for mixing up Soros' admitted actions re: loot, with another article that stated he did.
It's interesting that those who vilify GWB the most always seem to give a free pass to this convicted international criminal. Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Merry Christmas, all!