Gavel Grab

Two groups representing Social Security and immigration judges have asked the U.S. government to take new steps to protect them from the threat of violence.

Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, offered some of the worst horror stories at a session in Washington, according to an NPR report:

“One colleague reports that the brake lines to her car were cut while in the parking lot at work.”

“Another colleague reported that there was gang graffiti in her courtroom. During the anthrax scare, an immigration judge received a letter containing white powder. Another judge was grabbed by the robe by an irate respondent. Another judge experienced someone attempting suicide, right there, in the courtroom.” Read more

Internet radio host and blogger Harold Turner was convicted in his third trial of threatening the lives of three federal appeals court judges. His two prior trials had ended in deadlock.

Turner was tried in a Brooklyn court for a statement posted on his blog, saying that the federal district judges who upheld a Chicago based ban on handguns deserved to be killed.

According to a Bloomberg article, “You can’t threaten violence against people,” Assistant U.S. Attorney William Ridgway told jurors in his closing argument. “You can use hate speech, love speech and anything in between. But threats are not protected by the First Amendment.”

His mother, Kathy Diamond, said after the verdict, “There goes the First Amendment for everybody.” She added, “Since when does words mean you threatened to kill somebody?”

You can learn more about Turner’s case from Gavel Grab.

The latest attack against federal Judge Vaughn R. Walker (photo at right) comes in a symbolic resolution inviting members of the House of Representatives to condemn the jurist.

The resolution by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, follows Judge Walker’s ruling that declared the voter-approved Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional (see Gavel Grab). Smith’s resolution states:

“(1) Chief United States District Judge Vaughn R. Walker failed to conduct himself in an impartial manner before striking down California’s popularly enacted Proposition 8 and thereby redefined traditional marriage to include same-sex relationships; and (2) Chief United States District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s decision to strike down California’s popularly enacted Proposition 8 is wrong and should be appealed.”

But the issue has not snagged the attention of the House Republican leadership, according to an article in Politico. The Family Research Council, meanwhile, praised Smith’s resolution in a press statement. Read more

A federal judge has received hate mail and death threats after she put the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration law on hold. Her decision thrust her into a national spotlight.

Federal District Judge Susan R. Bolton halted the most controversial parts of the law from taking effect (see Gavel Grab). On Thursday, Arizona asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to lift her order.

The U.S. Marshals Service in Phoenix said the judge got death threats as emotions ran high over the divisive ruling, and demonstrators took to the streets, according to a New York Times article.

Some messages sent to Judge Bolton by phone calls and e-mails were positive but others were “from people venting and who have expressed their displeasure in a perverted way,” the Associated Press quoted David Gonzales, the U.S. Marshal for Arizona, as saying.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, said on the Fox News program Fox & Friends that the judge was “in many ways is responsible” if “anyone in Arizona gets hurt during this intervening period,” according to Media Matters for America, a media watchdog group. Here are Gingrich’s words, as reported by Media Matters: Read more

Federal District Judge Susan Bolton (photo at right) came under withering criticism from some foes for her ruling that enjoined the most controversial sections of Arizona’s new immigration law from taking effect (see Gavel Grab).

In Human Events, Ben Shapiro assailed her as “Example No. 1A in the pantheon of judicial activism” and added:

“Not only did she decide to purposefully misread Arizona’s immigration law, she also willfully blinded herself to basic fact.  Her ruling today was utterly unhinged and untethered from reality.”

A Washington Times editorial took a similar tack, saying, “Judge Bolton’s judicial activism is out of step with the law, out of step with politics and out of step with the good of the country.”

Republican J.D. Hayworth, running against Sen. John McCain for the GOP Senate nomination, said the judge had “gutted” the law. He went on, “The vast majority of Americans and Arizonans want this law implemented and the judge’s action simply circumvents the people’s will,” CBS News reported.

An article in the Wall Street Journal, however, stated that Judge Bolton “based her findings on court precedents that support federal pre-emption of state laws found to conflict with or infringe upon federal authority.”

And although Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said yesterday he was disappointed by Judge Bolton’s ruling, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton upon Kyl’s recommendation, according to the ThinkProgress blog. Kyl reportedly testified about her “expertise and fairness.”

Superior Court Judge Bethany Hicks told the Arizona Republic about Judge Bolton, “Everything she does is impeccable.” Judge Hicks said,  “That’s kind of her nickname. We call her ‘Impeccable’ because that’s how she is,” according to a CBS News blog post.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is getting criticism for having suggested that there are times when judges should go beyond interpreting the law to take a more activist stance.

Bloomberg said it was “probably true” that his administration did not comply with legal procedures when it sought to close 19 failing city schools, the Wall Street Journal reported. After an appeals panel of the State Supreme Court ruled against his administration, Bloomberg said the court had a larger obligation.

“We’re playing with children’s lives, not whether the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed,” Bloomberg said. “They should look at the context of it, and for them to think, ‘Well, you know, I’m just here to interpret the law,’ that’s not true. They are part of society.” He said the judges “made a terrible mistake.”

One of those criticizing Bloomberg was Doug Muzzio, a public affairs professor at Baruch College. “He’s telling the judges that ‘I am so right on the issue that your interpretation of the law doesn’t matter. It’s Bloomberg law. I am the philosopher king. I know best,’” Muzzio said.

In central China, a gunman shot three judges to death and wounded three other people before taking his own life.

An Associated Press article said the 46-year-old gunman was described by the official Xinhua News Agency as bearing a grudge against the court over a ruling in a marital property division dispute three years ago. He and his wife were getting a divorce then.

The judges who were killed had not been involved in the attacker’s case. Xinhua identified the attacker as Zhu Jun, a head of security at the Lingling district post office in Yongzhou in Hunan province. A small automatic handgun was used in the attacks.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona and County Attorney Andrew Thomas have withdrawn a racketeering lawsuit against  the Maricopa Board of Supervisors, county management, and judges, according to an Arizona Republic article.

The lawmen, whose tactics have led to questions about threats to an independent judiciary, said the U.S. Department of Justice had promised to review its corruption investigations into Maricopa County public officials. But the newspaper reported that Thomas and Arpaio have lost a number of rulings in their lawsuit, and “federal investigators are looking into their actions.”

You can learn more about the controversial Arizona sheriff and his record from these earlier Gavel Grab posts.

Hal Turner’s case, marked with theatrical elements,  has  once again led to a hung jury.  This case is now a mistrial for the shock jockey accused of threatening the lives of three federal appellate judges.

After three days of deliberation, the jury in Turner’s case decided they could not reach a verdict. Turner’s first trial ended with the same outcome. Today Judge Donald Walter, the judge proceeding over the Turner case, officially declared a mistrial, and scheduled a third trial for Turner on April 12.

Turner, a former FBI informant, is an internet radio show host and blogger whose audience is described as consisting largely of white supremacists and neo-Nazis. While working for the FBI, Turner collected information on some of the extremist who made up his audience.

Turner was tried for a statement posted on his blog, which said that the federal district judges who upheld a Chicago based ban on handguns “deserved to be killed.” He is charged with unlawfully threatening three federal appellate judges and if found guilty he could face a maximum of 10 years in prison.

For more information visit Gavel Grab.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich recently called for abolition of the entire Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Speaking to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, he got laughs and applause when he said Thomas Jefferson’s “judicial reform act of 1802 abolished 18 out of 35 federal judges, over half…I am more cautious than Jefferson. I would only abolish the Ninth Circuit Court.”

Urging abolition of a court is no laughing matter, however.

It is the kind of ideology-based attack, as described in a Justice at Stake report entitled “Crusading Against the Courts,” that seeks to undermine the independence of the courts by injecting religious politics into the selection of judges, how cases are decided, and whether to deny certain Americans their day in court.

The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit is the largest federal appeals court. With a reputation for a bench dominated by liberals, it long has been the object of controversy.

Gingrich called for the court’s abolition after alluding to a First Amendment controversy over a cross in the Mojave National Preserve. It was erected as a memorial to soldiers who died in World War I. The cross was the subject of a Ninth Circuit Court decision now on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The cross currently has a box over it because after all the ACLU is such a totalitarian organization it is threatened by a cross in the middle of the desert,” Gingrich said.

Last November, at a think-tank appearance, Gingrich went further in urging abolition of the Ninth Circuit.

“It is constitutionally permissible,” he asserted, “for the legislature and the president to say to a court, you are intolerable, and you no longer exist. And we need that debate because I am tired of secular fanatics trying to redesign America in their image.”

Perhaps Gingrich would have done better to quote Alexander Hamilton, who wrote, “The independence of the judges is…requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals.” You can learn more about the Founders and our courts from Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.