Sometimes things happen too fast. Here I was, intending to write about Judge Downey’s nomination to the Appellate Court, which was foundering after it was discovered that he had taken the absurd legal position that illegal immigrants can’t have access to the courts (presumably they still have the right to be sued), when I find that he has already withdrawn his nomination. I’ve seen some pretty weird judicial behavior in my time, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything so outrageous as a judge claiming that the courts aren’t open to everyone or demanding that the person before him produce a green card. The unsettling question arises-would the question have been asked had the individual in question not been a Latino?
On the other hand, perhaps more pernicious than the fact that he took such a boneheaded legal position is this mindset:
“Why should a person become a U.S. citizen if they can otherwise enjoy the same rights as the rest of us, especially after 9/11?” Downey said during a divorce hearing.
Yes indeed, why should a non-citizen be able to get a divorce, given that someone they never knew flew a plane into a building.
It’s bad enough that politicians like Bush use the events of 9/11 to shred the constitution and respect for basic human rights, but it’s even worse when a judge does it. At least Bush pretends to direct his ire at people who have some (albeit usually nonexistent) connection to terrorism. It sounds like Downey wants to assign blame for 9/11 to every non-citizen, or at least engage in a sort of presumption that they must pay for what happened. It’s time we all took a deep breath and acknowledged: 9/11 did NOT change everything, nor should it change everything.
Some people act rather strangely when they get on the bench. Some get a sort of god-complex and start to believe that the deference they get is theirs through their own merit and not by dint of the office they hold. That can lead to some strange behavior and, as in this case, some (to say the least) indiscreet language. I hasten to add that I can’t say if this was Downey’s problem-I’ve never been before him. Nor, for that matter, can I say he shouldn’t be on the Appellate Court bench. The next nominee could be far worse, but more close mouthed. These things happen.
While I’m on the subject of judicial nominations, I should add that there’s one judicial promotion I can support. Judge Barry Schaller, who was just appointed to the Supreme Court, served time in the New London circuit court years ago. I appeared before him often. He was, and presumably still is, a rock ribbed Republican. He was not a guy you’d want to be in front of if you were guilty of a crime. Though I’m sure we would disagree on most political issues, I always admired him as a judge. He was unfailingly polite to everyone who came before him, he was never arrogant, he let everyone have their say, and I always felt that he would apply the law as he understood it, whether he agreed with it or not. He was, and hopefully still is, the kind of guy who could almost give conservatives a good name. Of course, I never practiced criminal law. I imagine the folks who practice in that area might have a different take.
Post a Comment