When a person is appointed to a judicial post, is it acceptable or appropriate for that person to thank the Supreme Court, any nominating committee involved, and the elected officials who may have lobbied the Court or a justice's nominating committee on the appointee's behalf?
This allegedly happened recently -- not in a published news story (I checked the Law Bulletin to be sure) -- but on social media (Facebook, according to the account I heard).
I've published some angry comments complaining about political influence in filling judicial vacancies (I've flushed several more because they were fueled by that special mix of outrage and character assassination so popular online these days). But, nestled in the angry comments, published or not, is a question worth asking: If we value judicial independence, and if we support the idea of bipartisan, blue-ribbon nominating committees to assist the justices of the Supreme Court in filling vacancies, shouldn't we be just a tad miffed at the perception that this process is subject to political input and maybe political manipulation? I mean, if even the appointee believes that the process is susceptible to political influence, how can we ever expect the public to see it as legitimate?
I admit to not being particularly shocked that a successful appointee would include politicians in a list of persons to be thanked. After all, that new appointee is going to need the continued help of those politicians in order to hold that seat come primary time. I don't know for a fact that politicians try to secure appointments for their favorites, or whether some do more than others, although I suppose it to be so. I certainly don't know how Politician A lobbies Justice B (or a member of Justice B's committee) on behalf of Candidate C. But I am not so naive to think it never happens. And if I am sometimes envious of those who seem to have multiple committeemen advancing their judicial ambitions, I find it difficult to get upset about it. Isn't that just the way things work? Then again, I've lived in or near Chicago my entire life.
And maybe that's the trouble.
Illinois has a reputation as one of the more corrupt states in the nation. Cook County generally, and Chicago in particular, have contributed substantially (though by no means exclusively) to Illinois' historic reputation. Oregon and Minnesota, however, are perceived as far less corrupt (here's a recent survey, just for example's sake). What would a life-long Oregonian or Minnesotan think about the propriety of a committeeman -- any committeeman -- attempting to influence the appointment of judges by the Supreme Court? Imagine a transplanted Minnesotan on a justice's nominating committee in Illinois fielding a phone call from a committeeman. Would the person favored by that politician be helped or hurt, in the committee member's opinion, by such a call?
We grow up and grow old in a culture of corruption; no matter how upright and scrupulous we may be in our personal dealings, how can our perceptions of how things work -- how things should work -- not be influenced by our environment?
On the other hand -- and this is a sticking point for me -- according to the ARDC, as of October 31, 2013, there were 91,083 lawyers on the Master Roll of Illinois Attorneys. Nearly half of these -- 45,306 -- were in Cook County. There are more than that here now. In a rural county, perhaps, it may be possible to say that Mr. Smith is the best lawyer or that Mrs. Jones would make the best judge. But among so vast a population as we have in Cook County, can we ever really say that this person or that person is the one and only best person for a judicial appointment? I think the truth is that, even in Oregon and Minnesota, no committee, no matter how broadly-based, can take large numbers of applicants and honestly winnow them down to say that this one -- or even these 20 -- are the "best." There have to be other factors besides a good work record and strong peer reviews that a blue ribbon vacancy-filling committee, or a Circuit Court Nominating Committee for that matter, can take into account in anointing persons from an ocean of well-qualified applicants. These days, nominating committees acknowledge that they also consider race, gender, and ethnicity in distinguishing among well-qualified candidates; the goal is to increase public confidence in the judiciary by making the bench more reflective of the community as a whole.
But although a judge may look like some of the people that come before the bench, that judge must still have the skills to communicate effectively and understandably with the non-lawyers in the room in order to be effective. Isn't the ability to attract political support at least an indicator of well-developed public communication skills? Or would I feel differently if I'd grown up in Oregon or Minnesota?
I look forward to polite and professional discussion on this subject -- but I will flush comments that simply attack individuals or besmirch generally the integrity of the judiciary or of those involved in the judicial selection process.
3 months ago
Posts
