Pictured above is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The image may be blocked by New Jersey legal officials in criminal violation of the Constitution and your civil rights.
MSN groups is still "closed" or so I am told. I am unable to see my books on-line. One book will not be sent to on-line booksellers; "errors" are routinely inserted in my writings; crank calls from New Jersey -- possibly made with police protection or by police officers and/or other officials -- are a daily experience, for me, as is the vandalism and alterations of my copyright- and Constitutionally-protected writings.
Is "Lulu" also The New Jersey Law Journal and/or N.J. Supreme Court?
A fraudulent ISBN number(s) and thefts by "ethical" New Jersey attorneys at the OAE are seemingly O.K. with the state's Supreme Court.
I have no idea of the true number of readers of my blogs (or books) not even "approximately."
It is estimated, however, that readers of all of my writings at blogger and elsewhere may be well in excess of 100,000.
A number of these texts have been (and are being) translated into other languages. ("An Open Letter to Cyrus Vance, Jr., Esq.")
I wonder whether "Publish America" or "Lulu" are still contaminated by "state action" in their censorship efforts against me? Is there a "link" between these sites and New Jersey's government officials as individuals? OAE? Senator Menendez? ("How Censorship Works in America" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")
Are Justice Kennedy's writings altered by hackers? Would Mr. Kennedy like it if his works were defaced (or destroyed) by persons disagreeing with him and, hence, denying him the right to hold or express his opinions?
I doubt that he would like it.
Censorship is still my daily nightmare.
It is my fervent hope and ardent wish that all citations in this essay will not conform to the strictures of any Blue Book nor to the stern admonitions of something called: "The Chicago Manual of Style."
The words "Chicago" and "Manual of Style" are rarely associated in my life.
Attacks on this essay will be constant. I will do my best to make corrections as they are needed.
One word was deleted from the foregoing paragraph. I have now restored that word to the sentence from which it was taken.
I wish that I could make use of the image of a young woman murdered in Iran as she protested for the very free speech rights that she (and I) have been denied today -- rights that are now endangered for all of you.
American officials, evidently, are preventing me from posting images at these blogs in 2019 and beyond.
My primary sources for this essay are listed below:
Angela Y. Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003).
Ronald Dworkin, The Supreme Court Phalanx: The Court's New Right-Wing Bloc (New York: NYRB, 2008).
Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).
Ronald Dworkin, "Justice Sotomayor: The Unjust Hearings," in The New York Review of Books, September 24, 2009, at p. 37.
John Finnis, Natural Law, Natural Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980).
Lon Fuller, The Morality of Law (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964).
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961).
Duncan Kennedy, A Critique of Adjudication (fin de siecle) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997).
Roberto Mangabeira Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991).
Roberto Mangabeira Unger & Cornel West, The Future of American Progressivism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998).
Michael S. Moore, "Law as Justice," Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jr., Jeffrey Paul, eds., Natural Law and Modern Moral Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 2001), p. 115.
Michael Perry, The Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).
Richard A. Posner, The Problems of Jurisprudence (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990).
Lloyd L. Weinreb, Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 2005).
Morris B. Hoffman, who is identified as a state trial judge in Denver, writes in The New York Times, October 21, 2005:
"Does a judge's obligation begin and end with the law, or is the law merely an instrument through which judges should strive to achieve greater social good[?]"
Judge Hoffman concludes:
"... truly restrained judges follow the law no matter how politically or socially unpleasant the destination."
Judges are usually appointed in America. Only elected officials who reflect the values and will of the people should write laws which are to be applied, with impartiality (we hope), by appointed judges.
Judge Hoffman, along with most critics of judicial activism, fails to ask the crucial question: "What is law?" And what exactly are you asking a person to do, as a judge, who is to "apply" or "follow" the law? "Law" is a big word:
"Few questions concerning human society have been asked with such persistence and answered by serious thinkers in so many diverse, strange, and even paradoxical ways as the question 'What is law?' Even if we confine our attention to the legal theory of the last 150 years and neglect classical and medieval speculation about the 'nature' of law, we shall find a situation not paralleled in any other subject systematically studied as a separate academic specialty."
H.L.A Hart, The Concept of Law, p. 1.
If it is clearly and obviously true that law has to do with power and legitimacy -- meaning adherence to rules -- then it also seems clear that law is concerned, importantly, with morality and justice which may require limitations or exceptions to rules.
The issue of what rules are "for" is never irrelevant to the judicial task.
Values (or goals) of a legal system (especially certainty and justice) may and usually do conflict.
The greatest value served by any legal system is justice. The very idea of legality depends upon a notion of justice. (See Lon Fuller's writings above.)
Authority is not enough. Law must be concerned with legitimate authority. ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
Lawyers are mostly unaware of the vast literature concerning the philosophy of law, jurisprudence, which is a course offered in law schools that is usually ignored by students who are unconcerned about the meaning of what they plan to do for the rest of their lives, but troubled about how to use tax laws to save wealthy persons and corporations lots of money in their future law practices.
Legal culture or the history of law, international and comparative law, law and literature -- all of these areas of scholarly endeavor are neglected in the education of American lawyers. Legal ignorance may have tragic consequences for all of us. ("Law and Literature" and "Ronald Dworkin On Law as Interpretation.")
Most of the lawyers involved in rationalizing the tortures of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo had little or no experience (or knowledge) of international law and practice when they were asked by President Bush to analyze legal options with regard to detainees.
I am aware of how absurd and ridiculous is this ignorance and lack of experience among analysts in a nation with America's unrivaled or always available legal talent and scholarship: Phillipe Sands, Torture Team: Rumfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values (New York: Macmillan, 2009), pp. 56-71. ("In situations like this you don't call in the tough guys, you call in the lawyers." -- George Tenet.)
I chose to attend all of the following courses in an accredited American Law School: International Law; International Commercial Transactions; Conflicts of Laws; Jurisprudence; Advance Jurisprudence Seminar; Independent Study-"Right to Die" (Honors); and Comparative Legal Systems.
If I were among the lawyers and researchers Bush's Justice Department assigned to the legal analysis of torture policies I would have been (by far) the most experienced or knowledgeable of all of them with regard to international law and human rights conventions. This should frighten you.
I received the highest possible grade in each of these courses, including "best paper" in the class in two of them sometimes against Ivy League competition.
I also served as a guest judge in an international law moot court competition involving several law schools.
I was a guest lecturer on more than one occasion at my former law school and at other schools.
Not bad for a so-called "retarded person." ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics.")
How many of the demonized Bush lawyers ("retarded"?) writing infamous memos can say the same? ("What a man's gotta do" and "Burn Notice.")
Bush's torture lawyers would have been defeated by all of the law students that I saw at that competition.
I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion that this astonishing ignorance of the relevant areas of law -- among those who were asked to provide "expert opinions" for the U.S. Chief Executive -- is one important factor in the resulting absurdities and evil of military torture and murder in America's notorious and still operative concentration camps.
The torture scandal is not a display of American political or legal thinking at its best. For example, Mr. Jamadi was "killed" pursuant to interrogations -- i.e., beatings -- while in U.S. custody without ever being charged with committing a crime. The murder is now admitted, evidently, by U.S. authorities who feel no need to apologize to the victim's family for the crime.
Assassination of a foreign political leader is a policy explicitly renounced by America after the killing of Patrice Lumumba by the CIA in the nineteen-sixties that may be restored to U.S. practice early in the twenty-first century with disastrous consequences for all of us in the years to come.
This is a crime -- the murder of Mr. Jamadi -- that should be charged against Mr. Holder and President Obama and not Mr. Trump. Hence, there will be no expressions of outrage in America's "liberal" media because President Obama is "one of us."
I voted for Mr. Obama and would do so again, given the available options, but I would not hesitate to criticize any president over human rights violations.
Suppose that it were possible to program a supercomputer with every law in the land. If you commit an offense "X" then you will receive punishment "Y". No exceptions. All risk of discretion is eliminated. You are guaranteed the uniformity of result and predictability, absolute certainty of outcomes, that is much valued by many legal theorists.
Is it likely that such a machine would be an ideal judge? If not, why not? If you were accused of a crime, would you wish to be brought before such a mechanical judge functioning like an automated Tarot card reader? Do federal guidelines provide "mechanical jurisprudence" in District Courts?
Talk of "flexibility" in such guidelines is not very convincing or reassuring when you become the person to be sentenced.
My guess is that you would not wish for a "mechanical" judge.
You would wish for some human understanding from a judge, some capacity for empathy, for moral (yes, moral) discrimination and intelligence in the administration of laws.
Until computers can be programmed with a capacity for empathy and moral discernment they will not be of much assistance in the human task of judgment.
I believe that judges should have substantial discretion. I did not say "absolute" discretion. They should have, appropriately enough, some talent for "judgment" (think of what the word means), discernment and perceptiveness, ideally, even wisdom.
"Empathy" is not a dirty word. It is not a "bad thing" for a judge to be empathetic or "concerned" -- including being "concerned" for the victims of crimes and for criminals who are usually also victims.
I suggest that this capacity for moral and political reasoning is part of what we mean by law.
Law includes a kind of natural morality of legal processes. ("Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory.")
This tentative definition that owes much to Aquinas may be illustrated in what follows.
Please understand that this is to see law as a political, ethical, metaphysical concept with a kind of epistemology that is unique to the enterprise of "lawyering." Lord Coke called this method the "artificial reason of the law."
Law is always concrete and universal and also both ideal as well as practical.
Despite all of the obvious exceptions nowhere are legal practice skills more sharply developed than in America and Britain.
I say this as someone who has met British solicitors and barristers.
There are persons who find it disturbing that so many of the writers and thinkers I admire happen to be British or New Englanders. I am criticized because I do not quote a sufficient number of Latinos/Latinas.
I make decisions about the writers, thinkers, artists that I admire based on how good they are and not based on ethnicity or race. Among those I admire are quite a few Latinos and Latinas, also African-Americans. My home in thought is language -- really, languages -- so that persons who use words with skill are (and will remain) my teachers.
I am not distressed that many of these persons happen to be British.
All laws are expressed in words. All languages are made up of ambiguous, uncertain, and imprecise words -- words that require interpretation. Any human situation is only imperfectly captured in the language of the law. ("Is it rational to believe in God?" and "John Finnis and Ethical Cognitivism.")
"Words are like the arrows," Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "that I use to bring down the bird of thought."
Unfortunately, many of the arrows that lawyers and judges fire miss their targets -- often by a wide margin.
This is especially true of legislatures or committees drafting rules. Any meaning contained in law requires an interpreter acting or reading in "good faith," intelligently, and with an understanding of the purposes of communication in each context.
Never secretly, out of animosity, or for the delight of wielding power over others and causing pain.
Holmes was, of course, the founding father of American legal realism and a positivist. But then Holmes wrote his dissents and legal theories, mostly, before the experience of the Holocaust.
The Holocaust reminded humanity that something more than order or "positivity" is at stake in the legal systems of our societies. This recognition (good word!) of law's nature leads to the development of concepts of "crimes against humanity," such as torture, murder, and rape or genocidal policies of fascist states or the practice of strategic political assassination.
"Recognition" means "seeing again" or "knowing again" which is what appellate courts should try to do especially when human lives are at stake or the integrity of the system is at issue. ("Drawing Room Comedy: A Philosophical Essay in the Form of a Film Script.")
There was no positive legal basis for the Nuremberg trials. No precedent existed in international legal doctrine for the punishment of Nazis after the war. No rules. However, the world recognized that certain crimes may not be committed, not even -- or especially not! -- by those entrusted with legal authority in any society, certainly not in the United States of America.
Torturers must be punished and their crimes must not be legitimated with the "sanction" of law. It is bad enough for lawyers to betray their principles and commitments to the Constitution, but when combined with the surrender of medical ethics as in the recent torture crisis the result can only be evil. ("An Open Letter to My Torturers in New Jersey 'Terry Tuchin' and Diana Lisa Riccioli.")
Jane Mayer, "The Secret History: Can Leon Panetta Move the C.I.A. Forward Without Confronting its Past?," The New Yorker, June 22, 2009, pp. 50-59. ("This is arguably the single greatest medical-ethics scandal in American history. We need answers.")
Philippe Sands, "Torture -- The Complicit General," The New York Review of Books, September 24, 2009, p. 20. (" ... prolonged stress positions, deprivation of light and sound, [social isolation,] hooding, forced grooming, removal of clothing, and 'manipulation of individual phobias' [such as fear of dogs] to 'induce stress.' ...")
Ronald Dworkin speaks of adjudication as, essentially, an interpretive activity in which a judge should seek the "best" reading of the law in accordance with the integrity of the legal system as a whole. A key difficulty concerns one's view of human nature, especially when it is dressed in judicial robes. There is a process of ego-enhancement that comes with elevation to the bench. Some people can handle it, others can't. The question is whether, on the whole, the best persons available for such positions are to be trusted with generous discretion in the application of laws, especially when it comes to the broad and open-ended provisions of the U.S. Constitution, because we can be sure that they will (mostly) be able to cope with the ego trip associated with the judicial role. ("Jay Romano and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Sybil R. Moses and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
I think that most judges certainly can be trusted with discretion. I prefer greater flexibility to the straitjacket approach that is bound to produce unjust results in cases where mechanical adherence to rules does not fit the situation at hand. Some judges cannot be trusted with discretion or power. We have to hope that such judges are rare and (when discovered) can be removed, quickly.
Reality will always be too protean and complex for any scheme of rules, unless the rules are supplemented with abstract principles and standards, or general customs of practice, that provide flexibility at the joints of a legal system. Fortunately, there is always an appellate process and recourse to public opinion.
This is not by any means to recommend judicial "philosophizing" or "imposition of values."
We should all fear attempts by judges to resolve philosophical controversies or worse -- as with the Deborah T. Poritz and Stuart Rabner Supreme Courts in New Jersey -- efforts to legislate solutions to vexing social controversies or precise allocations of resources that go way beyond deciding specific cases or controversies involving individual litigants.
When appellate courts begin to hold "legislative" hearings by allowing experts to testify without cross examination, secretly, we should worry. Adam Liptak, "Justices Rule Crime Analysts Must Testify on Lab Results," The New York Times, June 26, 2009, p. 1. (Experts must not escape 6th Amendment constraints: "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
Judge Sotomayor has refused to go beyond her responsibilities as a judge. No doubt Judge Sotomayor has been criticized by minority groups who wish her to go further in promoting social equality. On the other hand, I hope, Judge Sotomayor is fearless in enforcing Constitutional rights of litigants and applying statutes written by legislatures when she can interpret them as containing some discernible meaning. This is not an easy challenge given the poor literary skills of many legislators, as I say, poor skills matched by so many judges. ("'The Scarlet Letter' and the #Me Too Moment.")
I enjoyed the opening proceedings of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. I was dismayed at the letters that appeared on my television screen in the midst of the judge's statement concerning "children's programming" on WNET. This distracted, unfairly, from the judge's statement. I was reminded of the similar interruption of Mr. Giuliani's speech at the Republican Convention.
Curiously, attacks on my computer and security system during the past two days have left me with numerous inserted "errors" in my writings. My t.v. signal is routinely blocked. I am sure that my experience of censorship is only a "coincidence" that is unrelated to the contents of my writings.
I was impressed with the unanimous commitment of all speakers before the U.S. Congress to freedom of speech under the Constitution. I am sure that at least some of these speakers are sincere concerning our freedom to disagree. I can only hope that, ordinary citizens as well as politicians, will some day enjoy authentic rights to freedom of expression and worship in America. ("How Censorship Works in America" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey.")
Judge Sotomayor's concern is with the law, not with telling citizens how to live their lives. The law often requires interpretation. "Interpreting" law inevitably involves values and evaluations.
Values are inextricable from the decisions of Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, who has found the arguments of Republicans highly persuasive and who agrees with prosecutors at every opportunity when appeals in criminal cases come before him and the Supreme Court. (See the quote from Jeffrey Toobin in "Charles Fried and William Shakespeare on Interpretation.")
Suppose that a law is enacted in Washington, D.C. forbidding people from "eating food in subway trains." The purpose of the law is to promote cleanliness in subway platforms and trains. For those who are convicted the penalty is "a $100.00 fine or a week in jail for anyone who fails to pay the fine."
A twelve year-old African-American girl is arrested and charged with violating this statute after eating one "French fry" while sitting in a subway train.
Is that one French fry "food" within the meaning of the statute? Suppose that this dangerous defendant -- one of Dick Cheney's "worst of the worst"? -- did not litter and that the "evidence" is now gone. Remember that the burden of proof is on the State.
The Defendant may remain silent and win her case. She does not have the $100.00 to pay the fine, if convicted, and she cannot reach any relative to help her.
Should we torture this child in order to discourage future littering? Are we "wild-eyed liberals" if we call for a little nuance in this situation? I do not think so.
If I were asked to advise this young woman in the good old days, I would insist that she not testify and put the state to its proofs. I would walk up to the prosecutor and ask: "Where's the French fry?" If the French fry does not "testify," Paul Bergrin would say, we have it made.
Debbie Poritz or Bob Menendez would send the child to Abu Ghraib -- unless they found the girl sexually attractive. ("Neil M. Cohen, Esq. and Conduct Unbecoming to the Legislature in New Jersey" and "New Jersey Superior Court Judge is a Child Molester" as well as "We don't know from nothing!" and "Judges Protect Child Molesters in Bayonne, New Jersey.")
Like 'em young, Alex Booth? Bob Menendez? These people speak to me of "ethics"? ("Edward M. De Sear, Esq. and New Jersey's Filth" and "Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes.")
Judge Hoffman, presumably, would take one look at this case and decide that the law is clear. If the Defendant is convicted, Judge Hoffman would set aside personal feelings and send the child to jail, however reluctantly:
"Sorry, but my hands are tied," is the positivist's kiss of death. "It's nothing personal." ("The Wanderer and His Shadow.")
Judge Hoffman is probably against "empathy" on the part of judges because a capacity for identification with litigants is a form of Communism or, possibly, demeaning to lesbian women in the "#Me Too" era. ("Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love Fest.")
Suppose an ideal judge (a distant cousin of Professor Dworkin's "Hercules"), let us call her "Hillary," were assigned this case.
Judge Hillary wonders whether the purpose of this law, "cleanliness in subways," conflicts with a fundamental Constitutional principle of the society, say, "equal protection of the laws."
Clearly, this law disproportionately burdens the poor. Poor people -- who are mostly African-American and minority in this community -- will always be more likely to eat in a hurry, consuming low quality, fast food; they will be more likely to be arrested and charged; they will be less likely to be able to pay the fine, and they will be sent to jail more often. ("Foucault, Rose, Davis and the Meaning(s) of Prison" and "America's Holocaust.")
Is cleanliness in subway trains such an important social goal that we will ignore the possible frustration of other prominent social goals of the legal system, such as promoting racial equality and harmony, or Constitutional principles ensuring due process and equal protection of the laws? Does the statute suffer from impermissible "vagueness" and is it "over-broad" so as to offend the due process principle? Could the legislature have intended to frustrate primary policy goals and legal principles with legislation such as this? Was the law really aimed at twelve year-olds who eat French fries on their way home from school?
These heuristic considerations are also "legal" since they are found in case law and within the U.S. Constitution's provisions.
The Constitution governs ALL American substantive laws, regulations, or procedures for relations between legal subjects and the State. Thus, a judge must "apply" these principles of fairness in interpreting statutes. These interpretive or hermeneutic principles are "law."
Any resemblance between this hypothetical and cases heard (or decided) by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is intentional and very deliberate.
I received a grade of A+ and "best exam" in my Constitutional Law course in law school. This is not unusual among (allegedly) "retarded" Latinos who are described as "fools" in New Jersey, mostly for refusing to commit crimes on behalf of political bosses or to accept violations of their own and their clients' fundamental rights by corrupt judges even if such corrupt judges are Jewish or mob-connected or both. ("Have you no shame Mr. Rabner?" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?)
Judge Hillary is doubtful that this possibility (conviction of children) was contemplated -- or desired -- by the legislature.
Notice that the law forbids "eating food" (not littering) on the subways. Prior to going on the bench -- with colleagues and also former presidents, the Honorable Judges Barack Obama and Rudolf Giuliani -- Judge Hillary served in the U.S. Senate and as U.S. President for two terms.
Judge Hillary knows politics very well. Judge Hillary is adept at "disposing" of cases from the bench with great acumen and skill, but without requesting sexual favors (like Lourdes Santiago) or cash in an envelope (like Estela de La Cruz).
The persons who wrote the law, as it turns out, were thinking of the business commuter getting on a train with a snack and tossing his or her garbage on the floor. It would frustrate fundamental social values and legislative purposes to apply the law "mechanically" to an African-American child eating "fries" when white children from the affluent suburbs will never face such a situation even if they have a three course meal in a subway train.
Judge Hillary may well reason that this law is discriminatory, as applied, and besides, that a week in jail for a twelve year-old who eats a French fry offends the "due process" clause and constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" -- but then, so would a diet of fried potatoes perhaps.
Judge Hillary may well dismiss the charges, inviting the young lady and her mother out to lunch, where she could provide a nutritious meal while helping an overworked mother to persuade her child to avoid fried food in the future, not for legal but strictly for health reasons.
Judge Hillary may also refer the offending statute back to the legislature for possible revision and amendment, making it clear (to police officers who are not too bright) that, in the future, American law enforcement should not be overly concerned about children who eat fries in subway trains. This case falls under the "get-this-shit-out-of-here" category.
Judges should not leave their knowledge of the real world and common sense outside their courtrooms. They should read laws intelligently, looking for the meaning in what was said -- which, again, is sometimes no easy task -- and for what was not said, the intentions and purposes that are ostensibly to be effectuated by the law, presumably, in a manner most consistent with other existing legislation and public policies which is also no easy task.
Judicial responsibility involves what Aristotle calls "practical wisdom" and not just knowledge of the law or facts.
Humanity and compassion are essential attributes of a good judge. There are, I hope and believe, many good judges in the system. There are also some bad judges. A few judges are incompetent and evil. There is no way to avoid a moral component in adjudication. Restraint merely results in one set of moral consequences; activism results in another. Failure to act can be a form of Republicans' much-dreaded activism for the status quo.
Assessments of judicial performance should be based, accordingly, on results in keeping with the law, productivity in the best sense, but also on the values of law as an institution, that is, preserving "integrity in law" (Fuller, Dworkin) and even justice. Scott Shane, "Cheney is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project," The New York Times, July 12, 2009, p. A1. (Did Mr. Cheney instruct the C.I.A. to "mislead" or lie to the U.S. Congress?)
Do you speak to me of "lying," ladies and gentlemen of the N.J. Bar Association? ("Is truth dead?" and "Christie and Mastro Accuse Each Other of Lying.")
Why were some observers concerned when Mr. Clinton allegedly "lied" about sex, but not terribly distressed at Bush/Cheney "weapons of mass deception" that have brought us costly military operations resulting in so much loss of life? "Whatever?" Whose lies do you worry about, Mr. Rabner, are everyone's lies unethical except for your lies to protect Ms. Poritz and/or yourself to say nothing of your soiled tribunal? Does Mr. Trump ever not lie about his conduct and adventures or the motives of his adversaries? ("Is truth dead?" and "Stuart Rabner's Selective Sense of Justice.")
America would have preferred that Mr. Bush had an affair with an intern to national involvement in multiple and stagnating military conflicts and a policy of torture as well as drone murders.
Deciding who is a good judge is not simply a matter of determining "how many files a person disposes of per day."
Determining what constitutes extraordinary judicial ability is an evaluative or partly moral judgment:
"It would be absurd to insist that the 'literature of moral philosophy is irrelevant to the proper performance of the judge's task.' ... Inevitably each justice will deal with human rights problems in terms of the particular political-moral criteria that are, in that justice's view, authoritative." (Perry, p. 111.)
The most dismal and depressing aspect of life for many lawyers, I am told, is the encounter with judges who should no longer be judges.
The most dismal experience for judges is probably meeting lawyers who should no longer be lawyers, however talented they may be.
The rigors of law practice take a toll on persons -- judges and lawyers alike -- since they are confronted with so much human suffering and evil. It should be permissible to express the need for rest and contemplation. In law practice, it is often not permissible to say: "We need to step away from this and think about what we are doing and why we are doing it." ("Law and Literature.")
There are any number of judges and lawyers, right now, who are thinking and feeling exactly this despair, every day. Evil is like a flame. A small taste of the ultimate variety of this quality that we call "evil" will change you forever. You will be burned by evil. You will not recover from an encounter with absolute evil. Members of society entrusted with coping with such malignancies -- judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, psychologists, police officers -- may be seduced by evil. Rest and contemplation are essential to such persons. (See Jane Mayer, pp. 58-59, concerning the appalling role of Joseph Matarazzo, the American Psychological Association, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen as well as others in the development and use of "harsh interrogation methods," i.e., torture.)
There is a need to reach out to troubled legal and medical professionals like Estela de La Cruz or Maureen Manteneo who is rumored to have an alcohol problem -- professionals who often commit no crimes -- with compassion and out of concern for them as well as to meet social needs. It is important to discern the causes of such failures, especially when they become systemic, the products of the system's own sicknesses. The mechanisms for the enforcement of legal rules should not be contributing to the system's failures, through neglect and disdain for those same rules, or worse, such as deliberate criminality by so-called "ethics enforcers" as in New Jersey. John McGill? ("New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics" then, again, "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
Ethics officials should not be in the business of causing (or creating) or lying about the conduct that they discipline by committing even worse offenses against their victims (like rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or use of forensic hypnosis and theft) in order to punish that conduct (or to cover-up their own criminality) through soliciting grievances against their victims. They certainly should not do that "punishing" -- or act at all -- secretly while claiming a "therapeutic" mission. ("John McGill, Esq., the OAE, and New Jersey Corruption.")
For government lawyers to commit the worst possible violations of the legal and moral rights of politically targeted professionals -- for them to commit CRIMES against such professionals by causing their victims' troubles -- only results in greater disregard for the humanity of all persons in society and leads to a deserved loss of the law's legitimacy or respect and is unethical. (Again: "New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System" and "New Jersey is the Home of the Living Dead.")
Years of apathy (or inaction) and silence in response to government evil is fatal to the integrity of a legal system.
Many good men and women in the U.S. legal system have given up after about ten years or so (sometimes less) and are on automatic pilot looking forward to retirement and accumulating wealth, allowing for greater personal satisfactions and the neglect of the moral implications of what they do. They live for the weekends, the new 'Benz, or a sexual tryst with a twenty year-old.
All moral concerns or ambitions have been forgotten by many or most urban lawyers long before their tenth year in practice. ("Law and Ethics in the Soprano State.")
"Idealism is something you outgrow," I was told by a lawyer once. "Who wants to save the world, I want to make money," is another bit of lawyers' wisdom that is passed on to the young, usually by a future judge in the process of "acquiring" his judgeship. How's it going, Jose? How much did it cost you? $15,000 in cash for a politician like Bob Menendez perhaps? Agustin Sanchez may have spent more than that to become a Union City Municipal Court judge for reasons that are beyond my comprehension.
It is difficult to take seriously law school bromides about becoming a heroic advocate for human rights when lawyers who do just that -- often "brazenly" defeating prosecutors -- "wind up" indicted, possibly as a form of payback. I hope there was more to the Lynne Stewart case than meets the eye. See: http://lynnestewart.org/mtigarlettertosullivan.html (Michael Avenatti, Esq. is clearly being targeted because he had the courage to represent a powerless woman against Mr. Trump. If Mr. Avenatti stole from his clients he belongs in prison, but if he did no such thing and is being targeted because of fearless representation then all lawyers have an interest in his vindication.)
We need un-intimidated criminal defense counsel. The courthouse cafeteria can be a graduate school for young attorneys in the mores and unwritten rules of the profession. One such rule is that cynical comments are applauded over idealistic ones.
Real lawyers "talk money" and give you the low-down on judges -- who just got a divorce or stopped drinking, names of judges doing drugs or who like sex with young partners, that sort of thing. Politics is whispered about in such places, or in restaurants nearby, so you can "learn your way around the county" and figure out "who you have take care of."
Aside from the occasional "lunatic" who is a loner lawyers quickly learn "how to get ahead."
Lawyers in ethics agencies, for example, learn to do favors for politically powerful outsiders -- usually secretly or for cash like John McGill, Esq. of New Jersey -- enforcing rules highly selectively if not hypocritically and stealing what they can in the process of doing so. ("One of New Jersey's Highly Ethical Attorneys Has a Problem" and "New Jersey's Legal System is a Whore House.")
It would be instructive for a scholar to spend a week dawdling outside courtrooms or in a courthouse cafeteria jotting down the things said by lawyers and "legal customers" about the system. The amount and degree of nihilism and alienation, also disgust -- heard from lawyers and judges! -- may come as a shock to law professors. None of this is said publicly. It is never what you will hear at American Bar Association functions. It is the needle under the flesh when lawyers see and listen to one another making boilerplate speeches. Everybody knows when called upon to speak at such "work-related" social occasions that the purpose is to advance one's career and certainly not to speak the truth, nor to say anything that is genuinely believed, much less anything controversial (nor something true) in any meaningful or important way. This kind of after dinner speech is only another form of lying by lawyers. ("On Bullshit.")
The legal profession is highly stratified and hierarchical. There is very little real collegiality; much unspoken animosity -- even loathing -- between "segments" of it in New Jersey. Some of the worst hatred I have ever seen was in the eyes of lawyers contemplating judges from a safe distance and those favored politically-connected "colleagues" given special deference by co-opted judges.
The loathing of Judge Gallipoli and some others expressed by lawyers who then kissed their asses is something I will never forget. ("New Jersey Lawyers' Ethics Farce" and "Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey Ethics.")
New Jersey is a bad example because the levels of corruption and incompetence among judges and OAE "lawyers" in that state is unique. ("Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court" as well as "New Jersey's Political and Judicial Whores" and "Menendez Charged With Selling His Office.")
There is a powerful political component -- like a cancer -- devouring the processes of American law. All kinds of things are done (secretly) and denied (publicly) by the powers that be. Often the least relevant item to examine in a case if you want to know what really happened is the transcripts of what was said on the record. These are things which many lawyers and others know, but do not say, not if they value their prospects. ("Mafia Influence in New Jersey's Courts and Politics" then "Does New Jersey's Mafia Enforcer Know Jaynee La Vecchia?" and "An Unpleasant Encounter With New Jersey's State Police" and "Joe Ferreiro Indicted Again.")
I hope to spend part of every day for the rest of my life attacking the New Jersey legal system in writing, publicly, and also broadcasting such attacks to the world.
What have you accomplished at the OAE? DRB? AG's office in Trenton? Is the cover-up of your crimes really working New Jersey?
I have serious reservations about the effectiveness of the "stone-walling" strategy pursued by the OAE in my matters. ("Judge John F. Russo, Cancer, and Corruption in the Garden State.")
The non-response to the evidence and statements that I have forwarded to U.S. officials and that are now a primary topic of discussion internationally among lawyers is an eloquent admission of the existence of a cover-up emanating from New Jersey of crimes committed against me -- a cover-up that (I hope) has now failed. ("N.J.'s Mafia Lawyers, Judges, Politicians and More Filth" and "N.J.'s 'Sad Spectacle' and 'Pathetic Farce.'")
The best proof of the accuracy of these observations is the pressure many lawyers will feel (or have imposed on them) to deny all of this in the interest of a false good cheer that is encouraged by professional organizations: "Let's all pretend to be friends and to like one another."
The response to what I say will be further threats against me and censorship of these essays: "A Letter From the DRB, in New Jersey" and "Another Letter From the DRB, in New Jersey."
Any more threatening letters Anne Milgram? Maureen Manteneo? Lourdes Santiago a.k.a. "William B. Ziff, Esq."? How about a letter asking for the keys to my apartment? ("Anne Milgram Does It Again!")
As European aristocrats in the seventeenth century attended parties with their pet monkeys so professional organizations have "pet" lawyers -- usually co-opted minority group members -- available for disarming minority or radical critiques with talk of "things getting better." Jose Ginarte, Esq.? Things are getting better -- for some people, not for most. (I enjoy Mr. Ginarte's T.V. advertisements inviting viewers to sustain injuries in order to sue their neighbors. Did Mr. Ginarte and Edgar Navarete scam insurance companies to steal fees from their colleagues as well as money from their clients? Did they bribe the OAE to look the other way? Do Ginarte and Navarete owe me money?)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/supreme/images/soto.jpg
Any more ethics charges against N.J. Supreme Court Justice Rivera-Soto? Mr. Rivera-Soto may have given someone his business card. "Justice" Jaynee La Vecchia may have stolen, allegedly, or "lost," or "failed to prevent the loss" of $300 MILLION in her so-called "supervision" of the HIP fiasco, which "seems" to have involved a conflict of interest for her. Genovese? Gambino? Luchese? Are you really "connected," Jaynee? Ms. Manteneo?
No ethics or criminal charges have been brought against Jaynee LaVecchia. Maureen Manteneo?("Jaynee LaVecchia and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Maurice J. Gallipoli and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" then "New Jersey Lawyers' Ethics Farce.")
Who cares about the millions of sick people ruined because they could not pay their medical bills after HIP folded? Not Jaynee. Mr. Obama, does this issue trouble you? Mr. Holder? Mr. Sessions? Is William Barr this week's U.S. Attorney General and, if so, will he do anything about this very public situation concerning my life that now humiliates the U.S. legal system and the nation's Supreme Court? ("What is it like to be tortured?")
To my knowledge these so-called N.J. "judges" and "justices" as well as many others like them (and some who are much worse) continue to sit on the state's judicial bench. Lourdes Santiago? Estela De La Cruz? Maureen Manteneo? The list seems to be endless. ("New Jersey's Political and Supreme Court Whores" and "New Jersey's Judges Disgrace America.")
Mr. Holder, why not look into this little episode of public theft and cover-ups? Too busy? If the mafia crooks in New Jersey were Republicans would you then investigate the state's corruption Mr. Holder? Mr. Sessions will be happy to know that New Jersey's crooked judges are mostly Democrats? Mr. Barr? How about a "Mueller Report" on New Jersey's judicial "collusion" with organized crime?
Mr. Christie, when did you become aware of my situation? Did you, Mr. Christie, stand idly by and observe the commission of crimes by state officials against a victim used as "bait" in a law-enforcement trap? Has Kim Guadagno visited my sites? If so, when did Ms. Guadagno first visit my sites? Did Ms. Guadagno remain apathetic to the criminal violation of my civil rights taking place, publicly, before a global Internet audience? Is this "apathy" ethical? ("How censorship works in America" and "Kim Guadagno Subpoenaed On Hoboken Issues.")
Ms. LaVecchia is well aware of the provisions of New Jersey law calling for judges who disgrace their offices and tribunals to resign. The catastrophe and obvious "irregularities" surrounding the HIP "deal" are sufficiently scandalous that anyone with a modicum of decency or concern for public office in the Garden State should resign IMMEDIATELY rather than further disgracing the law, herself, her brethren, or the unhappy residents of the putrid cranberry fields and charming cancer-filled suburbs near Trenton. No resignation Ms. LaVecchia? Bob Menendez? Stuart Rabner?
Only Judge Tolentino was more stupid than Jaynee LaVecchia in my experience. Is Lourdes Santiago still a Superior Court Judge? Did Luisa Gutierrez pretend to be a Superior Court judge? Gilberto Garcia and Mary Anne Kriko may have done worse and stolen more. ("No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!" and "Stuart Rabner and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey.")
Mr. Rabner's incompetence, at best, in the Prisco matter should have prevented him from becoming a judge let alone the Chief Justice of the most corrupt state in the union. Neil M. Cohen, Esq. should not have been provided with a computer and child porn by N.J. taxpayers to keep Mr. Cohen "amused" between sessions of the Union County Bar Association's Ethics Committee or the state Legislature. These people claim to be ethically and intellectually "superior" to me and most of their fellow citizens. I am unpersuaded by this contention. ("New Jersey is America's Legal Toilet" and "New Jersey's Political and Supreme Court Whores.")
New Jersey's legal establishment is the scum at the bottom of America's legal system. Somewhere below the level of inmates in the state's prisons you will find many of its lawyers and judges.
Loretta Weinberg, Esq. is a case in point being bribed with the services of female sex-workers, allegedly, to obtain her favors by the same persons "taking care of" Debbie Poritz, also allegedly. I wonder what contacts Ms. Weinberg "enjoyed" with Marilyn Straus while Ms. Straus was under hypnosis? ("New Jersey's Failed Judiciary.")
Where was the OAE when Mr. Cohen was accumulating child porn at your expense? Worried about me after my departure from the state? Is state action to violate a victim's civil rights not a federal crime John McGill? "Dr." Tuchin, how does a Jew become Mengele? Were you ever and/or are you now a physician or (specifically) a "forensic psychiatrist" at the C.I.A.? Who was paying you Terry/"David"? And for what services were you paid? Did you torture and/or "interrogate" Assata Shakur Terry/"David"? How about the "ice man" Terry/"David"? Did you torture (or "question") Mumia Abu-Jamal, secretly, under hypnosis or drugging, Terry Tuchin/"David"? How many other victims do you have Terry/"David" who will never know that you tortured them and betrayed their trust to the "authorities" and others for money? Do people not have a right to know what has been done to them against their will and by whom "things" were done? ("New Jersey's 'Ethical' Legal System.")
"Appearance of impropriety" Ms. LaVecchia? Where are the reports SECRETLY filed by Terry/"David" with the OAE and New Jersey's Supreme Court? Lost? Destroyed? Ethics? I ask you, N.J. judges, how do you remain passive observers to the psychological and physical torture or human rights violations of human beings? "Diana Lisa Riccioli" ("Jill Ketchum" or "Farai Chideya"?) what (or who) were you "providing" for Ms. Poritz? "Ladies of the night" for Debbie? What do you tell yourself in N.J. that makes it morally acceptable for you to be part of such horror? Censorship? Are you asking that we pretend that nothing happened OAE? How do you live with yourselves? How can you wear judicial robes in New Jersey and be a part of this horror which I am living and describing before the eyes of the world? Have you no shame, Mr. Rabner?
I define "hypocrisy" as any utterance of the word "ethics" by N.J.'s lowlifes and frauds who presume to judge me as they struggle to cover-up their crimes while wearing judicial robes.
Were you "paid" or rewarded by the OAE or anyone else in any way for your services against me Maria Martinez a.k.a. Barcelo of the Leonia/Verona School District? ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "What is it like to be plagiarized?" then "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")
New Jersey's legal reality is an overstuffed toilet that has become symbolic of all the worst faults of the U.S. legal system because it continues to be ignored, apparently, by federal officials who are duty-bound to deal with this crisis but are frightened (or incapable) of doing what needs to be done even as U.S. media sources are prevented from telling the truth about all of this which has been public for at least fifteen years. The "stench of corruption, as it were, is becoming unbearable even as it contaminates the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. ("Menendez Reelection Celebration.")
Some "honest and frank discussion" is desperately needed within the U.S. legal profession, also between lawyers and society. I doubt that such discussions will take place any time soon. Meanwhile, the system will continue to destroy and burn out good people, perhaps the best, as others -- probably those "pets" who agree to say what they are asked to say -- rise to positions of influence and/or judgeships in exchange for one measly and worm-eaten little lawyer's soul. "Lourdes-the-Lawyer" was a joke to most of her colleagues but is now a "judge' -- allegedly -- doing favors for the right people. (Again: "How Censorship Works in America" and "Censorship and Cruelty in New Jersey" then "Justice For Mumia Abu-Jamal" and "Anthony Suarez Goes on Trial.")
Gore Vidal described lawyers filling political and other positions of power in America as "energetic mediocrities." With many exceptions that Vidal would probably recognize I concur in the general point. Something in legal training and in the culture of the American legal profession is doing serious damage to the emotional capacities and intellects of persons who rise to prominence in law and government. Intelligent people make themselves stupid by giving up sensitivity to "succeed." I ask them to consider this question: What do you mean by "success"? ("'Michael Clayton': A Movie Review" and "'The Verdict': A Movie Review.")
One practical proposal is a regular opportunity for segments of the profession and public that do not usually come into contact to meet over symposiums or conversations focusing on (but not limited to) classic texts in law, politics, social sciences and/or the humanities providing an entry into debates of difficult issues both within the legal profession and in relations between law and society.
The torture issue is one such possible topic for public discussion. Separation of loved-ones is a kind of torture. ("Marilyn Straus Was Right!")
I am sure that torture takes place in the legal system and is covered up by agencies of the government and judges who wish to avoid seeing what is staring them in the face. The world sees it. Our legal contradictions and hypocrisies as well as lies are on display at this site for all of humanity to see. ("Time to End the Embargo Against Cuba" and "Psychological Torture in the American Legal System" then "Is truth dead?")
This is to make the legal system and the most important documents that are foundational to American democracy a cruel lie.
We must not allow such a thing to happen.
Even New Jersey must begin to respect the U.S. Constitution.
Dealing with torture and censorship is among the most important concerns for members of the judiciary right now, even more important than whether they manage to get a raise in the next legislative session.
School teachers in New Jersey (to take a random example) make about one third of what judges in that state are paid, but are often better educated and perform an equally valuable service. However, it is unlikely that teachers will get a needed raise any time soon. (Again: "New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court.")
The legal profession's response to Abu Ghraib has not been sufficiently intense or serious. Much more discussion and public activity is required concerning such issues from members of the bar. Thank goodness for the federal judiciary which is as much "above" politics as it can be. "Allegedly."
Law is so important to all of us that we must find a way to help the system improve itself. Secrecy and cover-ups of failures are not the answer. There is no alternative to a strong legal system in our society. Alas, this duty to challenge power and question our laws is an obligation that comes with citizenship and not one for which we may ask or expect a reward. It is how we earn the right to complain about the legal system's many failures. ("Why U.S. Courts Must Not Condone Torture" and "I am Sean Bell.")
In the Times, Stephen Holden reviews a documentary dealing with reversals of convictions on the basis of DNA evidence showing that innocent persons are routinely convicted in our courts, especially in places like New Jersey. The New York Times, October 21, 2005, p. E20. (See "How to Execute the Innocent in New Jersey" and "Driving While Black [DWB] in New Jersey.")
As for racism, "... in 1990, one in four black men [between ages 20-30] were incarcerated, or on probation or parole. [A few years] later, a second study established that this percentage had soared to almost one in three (32.2 percent). Moreover, more than one in ten Latino men in this age range [20-30] were in jail or prison ... on probation or parole." (Davis, p. 19.) ("Albert Florence and New Jersey's Racism.)
Today the numbers are even more discouraging and signs of hope are much more scarce.
In 2019 and beyond it is likely that one out of every two African-American young men will have an encounter with the criminal justice system.
Americans will spend close to $100 BILLION on prisons this year. As I write this I am 50+ years-old. I have already exceeded my life expectancy as a product of urban America.
Many young African-American men will not see their 40th birthdays, some of them living in the same neighborhoods where I lived as a child. It is close to a miracle that I have not ended up in a jail cell, mental institution, or dead, despite the best efforts of many torturers in the Garden State to bring about exactly such results for me and others.
My efforts to escape such a fate have been frustrated by legal professionals and/or "psychobabblers," whatever they may call themselves, inflicting horrible tortures on me and others. They are "disappointed" that the damage has not (yet) been lethal. Is this New Jersey's "ethics" Mr. Rabner?
I am sure that many others -- mostly women -- will be destroyed by such tactics to the delight of their proponents who see themselves as very "ethical." ("Chris Christie and Joey Torres in New Trouble.")
How many of you had sex with Marilyn Straus while she was unconscious or under hypnosis? Estela De La Cruz? Diana Lisa Riccioli? Lourdes Santiago? Maureen Manteneo? Mary Anne Kriko? Loretta Weinberg? Lilian Munoz? "Others"? Male and female? How often do you have sex with your victims "Diana"? "Farai Chideya"? Do you have to "take care of" N.J. judges and politicians for them to let you "slide" on your many sins? ("Marilyn Straus Was Right!" and "Diana's Friend Goes to Prison" then, again, "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")
If you believe that a minority defendant walks into an American courtroom with the same presumption of innocence as a white defendant then you are not living in the real world. This reality is rarely mentioned in law schools.
America's Supreme Court justices seem to live in Disneyworld with regard to such matters:
"The law in its majestic equality," Anatole France says, "forbids both the rich and poor from sleeping under bridges at night."
No law is going to solve this problem of inequality. What may do so is a change in people's hearts brought about by brave members of the judiciary exercising discretion in the interests of an expansive reading of the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution -- a reading which is reflective of a genuine comprehension of our time in legal thought. ("Manifesto for the Unfinished American Revolution.")
The fate of President Barack Obama might easily have been the destiny of Mumia Abu-Jamal. And vice versa. All of us are losers when society throws away human lives. Every person possesses a capacity for redemption. Genius is a rare miracle that we discard at our peril.
Mumia Abu-Jamal's "crime" is political and literary genius combined with African-American revolutionary consciousness. This combination is still enough to get you killed (or incarcerated) in America. ("Justice For Mumia Abu-Jamal.")
In the twentieth century a legal revolution took place that made our society much more just.
Perhaps another legal revolution is on the way in the twenty-first century. We can always hope. You have a better chance of going to prison in many urban neighborhoods, if you are a minority group member, than of going to college or attending any university.
After my experiences in life I am not certain of which is the worse fate.
I favor reparations exclusively for African-Americans where one component involves scholarship money for young persons in the African-American community demonstrating the ability to pursue higher studies.
It is cheaper to educate than to incarcerate America's young people.
Anyone growing up in urban America knows someone -- a childhood friend or acquaintance -- who is dead or in jail and will always regard the police (at best) with skepticism. If such a person becomes a lawyer, even with the best intentions in the world, he or she may eventually see law only as a means of making money which has very little to do with justice.
Given the amounts of waste, theft, fraud and tax evasion in America sending Wesley Snipes to prison for late filings of tax returns is absurd. Jamie Dimon?
Donald J. Trump does not pay taxes because he is "smart" as he explained in the presidential debate against Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump will not go to prison for tax evasion whatever happens concerning the collusion issue.
If YOU do not pay your taxes, however, the chances are excellent that you certainly will got to prison for a very long time.
The most common statement heard from lawyers "being real" is some variation of "it's the same old bullshit." Those who hope to save the world, sadly, do not last long in so-called "trench" legal warfare. It is also true that idealists and social-meliorists are more desperately needed now than ever before in the legal profession.
Some of us who care about the legal system are in the paradoxical situation of knowing good police officers and prosecutors doing necessary work. True believers and ideologues will be surprised to discover that we live in a "complicated world." ("Freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal" and "Mumia Abu-Jamal and the Unconstitutionality of the Death Penalty.")
When a new Supreme Court nominee faces U.S. Senate confirmation hearings I will worry not about that person's religious beliefs or the lack of such beliefs but about the nominee's thoughts concerning pressing social issues and how they affect the Constitutional rights of victims of racism and economic injustice, or victims of crime, who are (mostly) minority persons. I will be concerned about the nominee's views of due process and equal protection, about whether that person will recognize that intelligence and knowledge of the workings of the "real world" (i.e., wisdom and understanding since "world" is now a plural concept) are relevant even to Supreme Court decisions that concern (as they should) the clarification and application of broad principles of political morality to concrete dilemmas of sociability. A nominee's practical and political experience may be virtues when it comes to such considerations of political morality.
We always need more good judges and justices who will struggle FEARLESSLY to make America into the ideal envisioned by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
