Critics Allege Racism in Wall Street Journal Headline
A Wall Street Journal editorial critical of former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis B. Butler Jr., a nominee for the federal bench, has itself drawn censure for its headline labeling the African American jurist as “the White House Butler.”
The strongest criticism came from Madison attorney Jon Axelrod, according to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He requested a retraction and apology and stated:
“Not only do I strongly disagree with the contents of the editorial as deliberately misleading, but it is totally inappropriate to demean Judge Butler because of his race by comparing him to a butler, an occupation unfortunately stereotyped as predominantly African-American…You owe this distinguished Wisconsin jurist an immediate retraction tomorrow as well as an apology.”
Others, too, were critical of the newspaper. The headline “harkens back to an antiquated stereotype,” said state Sen. Spencer Coggs, D-Milwaukee, and former Wisconsin Chief Justice William Bablitch said, “At the very least, it’s highly insensitive….At the worst, it’s racist.”
The Journal Sentinel quoted a statement from Wall Street Journal spokeswoman Ashley Huston as saying, “The headline was a play off of his last name, and to suggest anything otherwise is absurd.”
On Thursday, in a Gavel Grab commentary responding to several aspects of the Journal editorial, Justice at Stake executive director Bert Brandenburg had questioned the headline as “very curious.” Brandenburg added, “Invoking antebellum stereotypes of black servitude is a pretty far cry from merit in anyone’s book.”
Former Justice Butler twice sustained statewide election defeats for the state
No comments
Email This Post
Judge Bybee Sets up Legal Defense Fund
A prominent federal appeals court judge has set up a legal defense fund. Judge Jay Bybee, who sits on a U.S. Court of Appeals in Nevada, had a role in legal opinions that justified the Bush administration’s harsh interrogation of detainees.
Judge Bybee “quietly set up the fund last July following widespread news reports” that he and a former deputy were the focus of an investigation by the Justice Department’s internal ethics unit, according to the Declassified blog of Newsweek.
A Washington lawyer who is one of the trustees for the fund would not discuss how much it has raised, the blog said.
Some liberal advocacy groups and law professors have called for Judge Bybee’s impeachment. Justice at Stake executive director Bert Brandenburg has cautioned against it. To read more about that controversy, click here for earlier Gavel Grab posts, and to read about the use of impeachment in certain cases to intimidate judges, read Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.
No comments Email This Post
More Dueling Analysis on NY Terror Trials
Both sides are continuing to exchange fire in the debate over Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to place five 9/11 co-defendants on trial in civilian courts in New York. Some leading newspapers, including USA Today and Washington Post, have featured rival viewpoints in the same day’s publication.
On one page of the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krauthammer contended that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed “has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable — a civilian trial in the media capital of the world — from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.” His column was headlined, “Travesty in New York.”
On another page of the same newspaper, two senior Justice Department officials from the Bush administration wrote that “Holder’s critics do not help their case by understating the criminal justice system’s capacities, overstating the military system’s virtues and bumper-stickering a reasonable decision.” The commentary by Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith was headlined, “Holder’s reasonable decision.”
In USA Today, you can check out “Our view on prosecuting terror suspects: Unsettling choice for 9/11 trial has one big plus,”or an alternative analysis, “Opposing view: Ditch tribunals entirely.”
Some other intriguing commentaries come from Margaret Carlson, in “Big Apple Justice Fits Man Accused of 9/11,” Bloomberg; Dan McLaughlin, in “Why Terrorists Don’t Deserve a Court Date,” CBS News; Jonathan Alter, in “Home Court Advantage,” Newsweek; and Stephen Paul Smith, in “The Forgotten Defendant of Guantanamo,” Huffington Post. Justice at Stake’s issues page on civil liberties and national security offers background on the topic.
No comments Email This Post
Wisc. Public Financing Bill Headed for Test?
If Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle signs into law legislation for public financing of statewide judicial elections, could a lawsuit be on the horizon?
That’s a possibility raised by a letter to Doyle from a group that opposes campaign finance restrictions, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in its All Politics Blog. The letter came from the Center for Competitive Politics in Alexandria, Va., and the group’s president Sean Parnell wrote:
“Past experience with similar programs in other states has shown them to be ineffective, and in all likelihood (the bill) would be struck down as unconstitutional.”
Responding quickly was Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a partner of Justice at Stake. McCabe wrote that the plan is constitutional and “easily represents the most significant campaign reform in Wisconsin since 1977.”
To learn more about Wisconsin’s legislation, click here for earlier Gavel Grab posts, and to read about public financing of judicial elections in general, click on this issues page from the Justice at Stake Web site. Doyle has said he plans to sign the legislation.
No comments Email This Post
Column Labels W. VA Reforms ‘Good Starting Point’
Pointing out that public confidence in West Virginia’s judiciary has diminished in recent years, a column in the West Virginia State Journal praised the state’s Independent Commission on Judicial Reform’s cautious recommendations as “a good starting point” in restoring trust in the courts. The panel was appointed by Governor Joe Manchin (left).
Column author Matt Crist said the commission’s main goal has been to bring West Virginia’s system “more in line with other states” by enhancing transparency and public participation. Crist said reforms are needed because the court system’s damaged reputation makes businesses reluctant to move to West Virginia. He said the most notable recommendation from the commission was the establishment of an intermediate appellate court with vacancies filled by appointments , Crist said.
The column also suggested that while “politicking” in judicial elections remains a concern for many citizens, the commission determined it best to hold off on deciding whether to replace partisan elections with either nonpartisan elections or merit selection. Instead the commission recommended public financing on a trial basis as well as experimental use of nonpartisan commissions to fill some vacancies.
On these proposed gradual changes to address problems of bias and escalating campaign spending, Crist wrote:
“These are not simple issues. We must respect the state constitution, and the commission seems to have been careful to do that. But the reason for reform is clear: We can become more appealing to investment that creates prosperity for our citizens if our court system is perceived to be committed to the rule of law. Creating opportunity in a state that continues to underachieve is the goal. Getting there will take time and patience.”
West Virginia was the stage for the landmark case Caperton v. Massey in which a coal company CEO spent 3 million dollars to help elect a West Virginia supreme court justice, who later overturned a 50 million dollar lawsuit in the company’s favor. Upon appeal the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that justices could be required to step down in cases where litigants have made considerable contributions. For more about this case see other Gavel Grab posts, or the Justice at Stake Caperton resource guide here. For other West Virginia Gavel Grab posts click here.
No comments Email This Post
Friday Media Summary
GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES/COURTS
Washington Post: Travesty in New York
Charles Krauthammer – November 20, 2009
Washington Post: Holder’s reasonable decision
Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith – November 20, 2009
FEDERAL NOMINATIONS
AP: Senate confirms controversial judge
LARRY MARGASAK – November 19, 2009
Tennessean: Committee endorses Nashville attorney for judgeship
Bill Theobald – November 19, 2009
BUTLER NOMINATION
PA. REFORM/MERIT SELECTION
WEST VIRGINIA REFORM
West Virginia State Journal: Judiciary Report: A Starting Point
Matt Crist – November 19, 2009
WISCONSIN PUBLIC FINANCING
Red Wing Republican Eagle: High court must remain impartial
Rep. Chris Danou, WI District 90 – November 19, 2009 Read more
Email This Post
Senate Confirms Controversial Appeals Court Pick
U.S. District Judge David Hamilton, President Obama’s first judicial pick after occupying the White House in January, won Senate confirmation to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday after a bruising and often partisan battle.
The Senate voted 59 to 39 to confirm Judge Hamilton, portrayed by supporters as a moderate sitting in the heartland state of Indiana and by his critics as a liberal, judicial activist. Among his supporters was home-state Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican. Earlier this week, Democrats rounded up more than the 60 votes needed to end a Republican-led filibuster against the nomination.
Once the filibuster was broken, the outcome was clinched. The Fort Wayne (Indiana) News-Sentinel editorialized in advance, and with resignation, about the new political landscape:
“Obama–either over the next three years or the next seven–has the power to drastically alter the bench and, therefore, the future of this country. And Republicans, at least for now, can’t stop him. Elections have consequences.”
The filibuster was led by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. As Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank noted in a column, Sessions stoutly decried filibusters when Democrats used them to block Republican George W. Bush’s nominees.
“I opposed filibusters before,” Sessions acknowledged recently. But in the case of Judge Hamilton, “I don’t agree with his judicial philosophy. Therefore, I believe this side cannot acquiesce into a philosophy that says that Democratic presidents can get their judges confirmed with 50 votes.”
No comments Email This Post
Showdown Looming on State Secrecy?
The White House and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee may be headed for a showdown over legislation on the state secrets privilege, according to the Politics blog of Atlantic magazine.
The Committee recently passed a measure that gives federal judges the power to a final say on whether assertion of the privilege is legitimate. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (photo at right), a New York Democrat and chairman of a key subcommittee, said the legislation is based on the principle that the executive branch cannot be its own judge.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee advances its version of the legislation, it wants to know the White House’s position. Privately, Obama administration officials say the president’s lawyers “are not likely to support any legislation that weakens the ability of the executive branch to determine what information constitutes a state secret and how to protect that information from disclosure,” Atlantic reported.
At times, the federal government has used the state secrets privilege to shut down civil liberties cases. Nadler has blasted expansion of the privilege during President George W. Bush’s administration as “the greatest threat to liberty in this country.”
The Justice Department recently announced new guidelines for evaluating state secrecy claims. To learn more, check out these earlier articles in Gavel Grab. You can also find more resources from Justice at Stake’s Civil Liberties and National Security page.
No comments Email This Post
Web Site Highlights U.S. Appeals Court Cases
A new Web site launched by the American Bar Association is aimed at helping the news media cover important cases in the nation’s appellate courts at a time the news industry is shrinking.
Media Alerts on Federal Courts of Appeals, as the Web site is known, will feature cases selected and summarized by these cooperating law schools, according to The Blog of Legal Times: Temple University Beasley School of Law, University of Texas School of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.
Initially, the Web site will cover the 3rd, 5th, and 9th Circuits, with expanded coverage to include the remaining circuits later.
“The case information not only serves a practical need, it also promotes transparency and public access, which go hand in hand with judicial accountability and judicial independence,” said a founder of the project, Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the 9th Circuit. “Greater access to and understanding of the judicial process fosters public confidence in our judicial system.”
You can learn more about the Web site from this ABA news release.
No comments Email This Post
Thursday Media Summary
JUSTICE AT STAKE
Wall Street Journal: The White House Butler
November 19, 2009
GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES/COURTS
Bloomberg: Big Apple Justice Fits Man Accused of 9/11
Margaret Carlson – November 19, 2009
CBS: Why Terrorists Don’t Deserve A Court Date
Dan McLaughlin – November 18, 2009
Newsweek: Home Court Advantage
Jonathan Alter – November 18, 2009
Huffington Post: The Forgotten Defendant of Guantanamo
Stephen Paul Smith – November 18, 2009
FEDERAL NOMINATIONS
MERIT SELECTION
WEST VIRGINIA JUDICIAL REFORM
WOWK: Judicial Reforms Start in Slow Motion
Dan Page – November 19, 2009
PATRIOT ACT REFORM
FOIA/TORTURE PHOTOS
SCOTUSBlog: ACLU seeks to salvage FOIA ruling
Lyle Denniston – November 18, 2009 Read more
Email This Post