Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) takes on the daunting task of reforming the nation's criminal justice system.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/webb-takes-next-challenge-nations-prison-system
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Pitchfork Rebellion contributes Public Policy Op-Ed piece to Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
The Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy featured an article by one of our founders
in their Op-Ed section this week - the topic: Virginia's inherently flawed judicial selection process. This piece touches on many of the flaws in our current process and offers some practical solutions. We'd like to know: how much is the state of VA spending on rehab for judges, also known as the "Judges Helping Judges" program? If Chief Justice Hassell cannot find money in the budget for the Judicial Performance Evaluation program, why is he spending money hand over fist to rehabilitate troubled judges and calling for pay raises for VA judges?
http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/03/17/judicial-selection-in-virginia-an-inherently-flawed-process/
in their Op-Ed section this week - the topic: Virginia's inherently flawed judicial selection process. This piece touches on many of the flaws in our current process and offers some practical solutions. We'd like to know: how much is the state of VA spending on rehab for judges, also known as the "Judges Helping Judges" program? If Chief Justice Hassell cannot find money in the budget for the Judicial Performance Evaluation program, why is he spending money hand over fist to rehabilitate troubled judges and calling for pay raises for VA judges?
http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/03/17/judicial-selection-in-virginia-an-inherently-flawed-process/
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Richmond Times Lead Editorial: Pitchfork Rebellion and Sunshine
Today's Richmond Times lead editorial is on the topic of judicial selection in VA and features The Pitchfork Rebellion.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/EDJUDGES_20090313-212208/231253/
The Richmond Times gets it. They liken Virginia's closed door selection of judges to "proceedings the Ottoman Empire would have considered baffling, if not inscrutable." We could not agree more. The way Virginia selects its judges is a regression of hundreds of years to the days of the British star chambers, meetings of secret administrative bodies that met between 1398-1641. The British did away with star chamber proceedings because their secrecy cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the proceedings. Yet, here we are in the 21st century with our state legislators meeting in secret to debate the merits of particular judicial candidates.
We need to reform judicial selection in VA to allow for complete transparency in the process and merit based selection of judges.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/editorials/article/EDJUDGES_20090313-212208/231253/
The Richmond Times gets it. They liken Virginia's closed door selection of judges to "proceedings the Ottoman Empire would have considered baffling, if not inscrutable." We could not agree more. The way Virginia selects its judges is a regression of hundreds of years to the days of the British star chambers, meetings of secret administrative bodies that met between 1398-1641. The British did away with star chamber proceedings because their secrecy cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the proceedings. Yet, here we are in the 21st century with our state legislators meeting in secret to debate the merits of particular judicial candidates.
We need to reform judicial selection in VA to allow for complete transparency in the process and merit based selection of judges.
Richmond Times: Judging Chief Justice Hassell
We thought our readers might be interested in this piece by the Richmond Times about VA Supreme Court chief justice Leroy Rountree Hassell:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/columnists_news/article/JEFF08_20090307-215835/224468/
The million dollar questiion is this: will chief justice Hassell and the VA Supreme Court dip into their budget to fund the Judicial Performance Evaluations now that the VA General Assembly has just cut $600,000 from this budget?
Or will there not be any evaluations in the future despite the fact that our law requires each judge to be evaluated under the JPE program?
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/columnists_news/article/JEFF08_20090307-215835/224468/
The million dollar questiion is this: will chief justice Hassell and the VA Supreme Court dip into their budget to fund the Judicial Performance Evaluations now that the VA General Assembly has just cut $600,000 from this budget?
Or will there not be any evaluations in the future despite the fact that our law requires each judge to be evaluated under the JPE program?
VA Pilot Editorial: Misguided and Judgmental
This week the VA Pilot wrote an editorial on judicial selection in VA.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/avoid-haste-judicial-reform
Their take on The Pitchfork Rebellion? They think, "pitchforks imply a level of haste and emotionalism that should be replaced with caution and sound reason."
Their editorial writer, just a few hundred words later, goes on to contradict the above warning of avoiding haste in judicial reforms by calling on State leaders to, "embrace more immediate opportunities for reform." The operative, contradictory word being "immediate."
The Pitchfork Rebellion has called for transparency in the VA judicial selection process as well as merit based selection of judges. We recognize these reforms will take time. We've started an important public dialogue about judicial selection in our state and are working to be a catalyst for meaningful change in this regard. Our positions are reasoned, thoughtful and legally sound. With all due respect to the VA Pilot editorial writer, how does she propose implementing "immediate" reforms when the General Assembly is out of session? Perhaps the VA Pilot's ideas for reform were hasty and not well thought out.
The VA Pilot editorial writer concludes with, "Pitchforks rarely result in long-standing improvements." We beg to differ. Most human progress has stemmed from citizen rebellions. Our country was founded by men and women who broke away from Great Britain. More recently, Communism fell because of peaceful, populist movements such as Solidarity.
Our judiciary is at stake - we either accept the status quo (a system that everyone acknowledges is broken) or we work tirelessly to change and improve it.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/avoid-haste-judicial-reform
Their take on The Pitchfork Rebellion? They think, "pitchforks imply a level of haste and emotionalism that should be replaced with caution and sound reason."
Their editorial writer, just a few hundred words later, goes on to contradict the above warning of avoiding haste in judicial reforms by calling on State leaders to, "embrace more immediate opportunities for reform." The operative, contradictory word being "immediate."
The Pitchfork Rebellion has called for transparency in the VA judicial selection process as well as merit based selection of judges. We recognize these reforms will take time. We've started an important public dialogue about judicial selection in our state and are working to be a catalyst for meaningful change in this regard. Our positions are reasoned, thoughtful and legally sound. With all due respect to the VA Pilot editorial writer, how does she propose implementing "immediate" reforms when the General Assembly is out of session? Perhaps the VA Pilot's ideas for reform were hasty and not well thought out.
The VA Pilot editorial writer concludes with, "Pitchforks rarely result in long-standing improvements." We beg to differ. Most human progress has stemmed from citizen rebellions. Our country was founded by men and women who broke away from Great Britain. More recently, Communism fell because of peaceful, populist movements such as Solidarity.
Our judiciary is at stake - we either accept the status quo (a system that everyone acknowledges is broken) or we work tirelessly to change and improve it.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Ruth Bader Ginsburg hints at upcoming US Supreme Court opening
US Supreme Court justice Rith Bader Ginsburg told law students today the US Supreme Court will surely have a new justice on the high court soon.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96T9UQG0&show_article=1
The ailing 75 year old Ginsburg will perhaps retire. But since the US Constitution does not impose term limits on US Supreme Court justices or a mandatory retirement age, US Supreme Court justices typically serve until nearly the end of their lives, notwithstanding serious health problems.
Virginia has a mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges. The problem is that VA judges can retire and then go back to work! Yes, that's right, they "retire" then serve as substitute judges in their twilight years. Case in point, Jean Harrison Clements recently retired from the Court of Appeals of VA, yet she intends to continue serving as a judge pro tempore.
First, from an economic standpoint alone, this hurts the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Virginia since these "retired" judges work in retirement adds pensionable earnings to their retirement pensions. In other words, since a pension is based principally upon the annuitant's age and years of service, adding more service at an old age can be quite lucrative for older judges. And the corollary is, the additional pension benefits these old judges accrue are quite costly to Virginia taxpayers, who ultimately fund the state's pension system for employees.
Second, statistics show that nearly half of all people age 80 (and many in their 70's for that matter) have dementia. Do we really want folks who may be losing (or who have already lost) their mental faculties hearing important cases? If your judge could not remember what he ate for breakfast, do you think he could recall detailed legal arguments and facts of cases?
News flash: Virginia has a massive budget deficit. And the US economy is in a deep recession.
Why are we making poor financial decisions that only benefit old judges?
Virginia should make age 70 a truly mandatory retirement age and not allow judges to serve in any capacity beyond age 70.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96T9UQG0&show_article=1
The ailing 75 year old Ginsburg will perhaps retire. But since the US Constitution does not impose term limits on US Supreme Court justices or a mandatory retirement age, US Supreme Court justices typically serve until nearly the end of their lives, notwithstanding serious health problems.
Virginia has a mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges. The problem is that VA judges can retire and then go back to work! Yes, that's right, they "retire" then serve as substitute judges in their twilight years. Case in point, Jean Harrison Clements recently retired from the Court of Appeals of VA, yet she intends to continue serving as a judge pro tempore.
First, from an economic standpoint alone, this hurts the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Virginia since these "retired" judges work in retirement adds pensionable earnings to their retirement pensions. In other words, since a pension is based principally upon the annuitant's age and years of service, adding more service at an old age can be quite lucrative for older judges. And the corollary is, the additional pension benefits these old judges accrue are quite costly to Virginia taxpayers, who ultimately fund the state's pension system for employees.
Second, statistics show that nearly half of all people age 80 (and many in their 70's for that matter) have dementia. Do we really want folks who may be losing (or who have already lost) their mental faculties hearing important cases? If your judge could not remember what he ate for breakfast, do you think he could recall detailed legal arguments and facts of cases?
News flash: Virginia has a massive budget deficit. And the US economy is in a deep recession.
Why are we making poor financial decisions that only benefit old judges?
Virginia should make age 70 a truly mandatory retirement age and not allow judges to serve in any capacity beyond age 70.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Can Judges Be Bought?
Good question. Parade Magazine wrote an article on this topic today.
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/can-judges-be-bought.html
Take the famous WV case before the US Supreme Court now, how could the judge who received over $3,000,000 in campaign contributions possibly be impartial when hearing this case involving his major campaign contributor?
Money talks. It defies common sense to think that this judge would not have been influenced in his decision making by $3,000,000.
Even if there is not actual bias, there is the appearance of a conflict of interests. That should be enough for a judge to recuse himself.
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/can-judges-be-bought.html
Take the famous WV case before the US Supreme Court now, how could the judge who received over $3,000,000 in campaign contributions possibly be impartial when hearing this case involving his major campaign contributor?
Money talks. It defies common sense to think that this judge would not have been influenced in his decision making by $3,000,000.
Even if there is not actual bias, there is the appearance of a conflict of interests. That should be enough for a judge to recuse himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
