Jurisprudence

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Sep 27, 2006

Although Congress largely dropped the ball on lobbying reform this year, another branch of government, the federal judiciary, is being admirably proactive in removing the appearance of undue influence or conflicts of interest. Responding to complaints -- some of which were a bit overwrought, we thought -- the Judicial Conference of the United States last week announced new rules requiring federal judges to disclose the types of privately sponsored conferences and seminars they attend, within 30 days of doing so. Also announced was the creation of a computer software program designed to help identify cases in which a judge might have a conflict of interest.

Certain self-styled watchdog groups have, we know, suggested that the impartiality of judges could be compromised if they attend conferences or seminars funded by corporations, advocacy groups or other potentially interested parties. But we haven't seen compelling evidence that this is a major problem. Perceptions are important, however, and the judiciary must remain above even the appearance of a bias. Accordingly, we think the strengthening of disclosure rules makes sense.

If there is corruption on the federal bench, it's of a more subtle, and thus insidious, kind -- stemming from the personal or political biases judges read into the law, as well as the hubris that comes from wielding vast power. These are human failings, which can't be changed by new disclosure rules or computer software packages. But if these reforms help reduce even the hint of judicial impropriety, and help reassure the public that their judges are unbiased and honest, they might do some good.

The changes are designed "to maintain public confidence in the system," said U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, a member of the 27- member panel that sets policy for federal judges. Hogan told USA Today that more "transparency" in judges' offbench activities is needed. And we agree, up to a point.

Also last week, Chief Justice John Roberts released a study showing that about 30 percent of "high visibility" judicial misconduct complaints have been mishandled -- highlighting a situation that definitely needs to be addressed. The study, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, included recommendations to improve the way complaints are handled. We hope they'll be taken seriously, because this seems a much bigger problem than what conferences judges attend or what's in their investment portfolio.

Of the three branches of the federal government, the least accountable to the people is the federal bench, which is entirely by design, in order to insulate jurists from political pressures. But such insularity makes it even more imperative that members of the federal bench be proactive about policing themselves -- as they've done in this case. A failure to do so not only undermines trust in the justice system, but invites more Draconian controls or responses.

For instance, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin, has proposed creating an "inspector general" for the federal court system, modeled after the IGs at government agencies who sniff out waste, fraud or ethical lapses. But we believe, for now at least, that this would be an overreaction -- one with the law of unintended consequences written all over it.

Some argue that federal judges should be barred from attending events hosted by organizations that have agendas or interests that may touch on court business. But that's silly, since almost any group -- even the American Bar Association -- can have an agenda, or less-than-disinterested motives for hosting an event. We trust that anyone experienced and smart enough to win a place on the federal bench is also smart enough to sort the substance from the spin -- and honorable enough to stick to the facts and the law when weighing a case.

We expect impartiality and legal expertise from federal judges, not that they live lives completely removed from the world of ideas and public discourse. Hermetically sealing them in a cloister, lest they be unduly influenced by outside ideas or pressures, is both impractical and undesirable.

We think it's adequate that judges disclose the conferences they attend, as well as who sponsors them, leaving judicial watchdog groups and vigilant citizens to decide whether this has led a judge down the road to perdition or compromised a ruling from the bench. We're content to treat federal judges like adults, in other words, until there's a compelling reason to do otherwise.

Coddling despots a left-wing tradition

Despite the oppressive nature of his totalitarian regime, Cuba's Fidel Castro still gets a warm welcome in the United States by many American leftists. But as Castro fades, the revolutionary left needs a new hero -- and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez apparently fits the bill. We couldn't help but grimace at the sight of Chavez at a Harlem church, arm-in-arm with actor Danny Glover, shortly after Chavez made a fool of himself at the United Nations last week. It's clear that some American liberals are carrying on the despot- coddling tradition.