Judges Take the Stand

Chad Oldfather has a new paper on SSRN reviewing William Domnarski’s book Federal Judges Revealed.  Not exactly the lurid exposé suggested by the title, Domnarski’s book synthesizes the insights he gained from reviewing more than 100 oral histories given by federal judges to different interviewers over a period of many years.  As Chad notes, oral histories have the potential to add much to our understanding of the judiciary, for judges are generally less guarded about their personal views and experiences in these interviews than in their written opinions.  On the other hand, as a drawback to oral history, Chad notes that there is no clearly established, rigorous methodology for taking an oral history.  That may be one reason that Domnarski’s book apparently lacks any really surprising insights into the federal judiciary.

As one of the more interesting aspects of the book, Chad highlights Domnarski’s treatment of the role of judicial clerks: “Federal Judges Revealed provides valuable testimony from judges regarding how they use their clerks, and how much they depend on them.”  For instance, one judge says, “[M]any of [my clerks] have an ability to grasp technical details and relationships that entirely escape me.  Let’s face it; I try to get clerks who are significantly brighter than I am.”  Some may find such statements about the importance of clerks a bit troubling — one might question who is really in charge, the presidentially appointed judge or the fresh-out-of-law-school clerk. 

Continue ReadingJudges Take the Stand

What’s Good for the Goose . . .

Earlier this week, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in In Re Sherwin-Williams Co. The court upheld Judge Lynn Adelman’s decision not to recuse himself from a case pending before him in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Burton v. American Cyandamid, et al. 

Sherwin-Williams is currently before Adelman as a defendant in a personal injury action involving lead paint, heard in diversity jurisdiction. S-W believed “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (the relevant legal standard) because he had written an article defending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s controversial lead paint decision in Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129.  (The article is Adelman & Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007)). In the article, Adelman defended the Court’s 04-05 term generally and praised Thomas particularly as a “positive development” which ensured that “the doors of the courthouse remain open.” Id. at 446. 

Based on this characterization, S-W sought his recusal in this case. 

Continue ReadingWhat’s Good for the Goose . . .

Sykes, Sotomayor, and Women Judges

I had the opportunity last week to attend Women Judges’ Night, an event that the Association for Women Lawyers presents annually (indeed, this year’s dinner was the thirtieth such). The Hon. Diane S. Sykes, L’84, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, delivered what was billed as a keynote but was also in the nature of after-dinner remarks. The speech was a very good example of either form, for reasons related to its warmth, its willingness to take on a substantive and even somewhat contentious topic, and the speaker’s self-awareness and humor.

Judge Sykes began with a “confess[ion]”:

[T]the idea of a “Women Judges Night” has always made me vaguely uneasy. I’m uncomfortable with the implications and consequences of gender-identity politics—or any identity politics, for that matter. When we celebrate Women Judges Night every year, what is it precisely that we’re celebrating? If we’re celebrating the appointment or election of women judges just because they are women, then I think we are making a mistake about the qualities necessary in a good judge, which of course are not gender-specific. If we’re celebrating the appointment and election of women judges because they subscribe to a gender-based brand of judging, then we are making an even bigger mistake about the nature of the judicial role. I don’t think we’re celebrating either of these things, but I do think it’s important for us to be careful not to diminish the contributions of women judges by emphasizing their gender as if it had something to do with their qualifications for judicial office or has substantive significance in their work.

She would conclude with her own assessment of what the event celebrates, along the way touching upon matters from Madison to Washington, D.C.—from her former court, a majority of whose justices were in attendance (viz., Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, Justice Annette K. Ziegler, and Justice Patience D. Roggensack, the last of whom introduced Judge Sykes), to the United States Supreme Court and, in particular, last year’s confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 

Continue ReadingSykes, Sotomayor, and Women Judges
Newer Posts
Older Posts