No announcement yet.

Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ZONA
    Originally posted by DenverBrit View Post
    Taxpayer funded elections!! It will fix some of the problems, but not all.

    Getting the money out of the elections should be a priority, the SCOTUS is unlikely to ever overturn 'Citizens U.'
    Agreed. The Republicans wanted money to be a major influence in our politics for quite some time. This single thing is all you need to know about what that party is all about. The only way it gets over turned is if/when the Dems will control all 3 branches again and take it out of the SCOTUS hands.

    Leave a comment:

  • DenverBrit
    Taxpayer funded elections!! It will fix some of the problems, but not all.

    Getting the money out of the elections should be a priority, the SCOTUS is unlikely to ever overturn 'Citizens U.'

    Leave a comment:

  • mhgaffney
    Good post. I was hoping someone (besides me) heard about this. Just another sign the system is terminally corrupt. If $$$ can corrupt the Executive and Legislative branches it can also corrupt the judiciary.

    Leave a comment:

  • Rohirrim
    Since they turned over complete power of our government to the oligarchs via Citizens United, it's been downhill from there. Add in the validation for the new era of Jim Crow, and you have the worst partisan activist court in history. This court basically acts as the judicial wing of the right wing, Tea Party/Trumpist revolution while Barr serves as the Inquisitor General. All the building blocks are in place for a fascist takeover.

    Leave a comment:

  • Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar

    In a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts, he detailed why he’s lost faith in the court.

    James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. He has appeared on briefs and petitions as part of the most prestigious association of attorneys in the country: the Supreme Court Bar. The lawyers admitted to practice before the high court enjoy preferred seating at arguments and access to the court library, and are deemed members of the legal elite. Above all, the bar stands as a sprawling national signifier that the work of the court, the legitimacy of the institution, and the business of justice is bolstered by tens of thousands of lawyers across the nation.

    On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. In his letter, reprinted in full below, Dannenberg compares the current Supreme Court, with its boundless solicitude for the rights of the wealthy, the privileged, and the comfortable, to the court that ushered in the Lochner era in the early 20th century, a period of profound judicial activism that put a heavy thumb on the scale for big business, banking, and insurance interests, and ruled consistently against child labor, fair wages, and labor regulations.

    The Chief Justice of the United States
    One First Street, N.E.
    Washington, D.C. 20543
    March 11, 2020

    Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

    I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.

    This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.

    I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.

    The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.

    Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.

    Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.

    It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.

    I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.

    The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around.

    I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.

    Please remove my name from the rolls.

    With deepest regret,

    James Dannenberg