Reps may usurp power of judicial watchdog (No more Judicial Oversight in MA

Reps may usurp power of judicial watchdog

by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Tuesday, May 7, 2002

The independent watchdog panel that oversees judicial behavior would be obliterated and its duties handed to lawmakers, under budget riders filed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's leadership team.

The amendments wipe out the Judicial Conduct Commission's $405,036 operating budget and divvy the money among other causes.

The nine-member panel assesses complaints against judges, and levies punishments ranging from reprimands to removal from the bench.

Control over judges' fates would be given to the legislative Judiciary Committee - whose House vice chairman filed the amendments.

Court observers were outraged, saying the House's proposal would allow lawmakers to punish their enemies and reward their friends in the judiciary, which lawmakers have long stacked with patronage hires.

``We don't have an independent third branch of government,'' said Charles Chieppo, director of the Pioneer Institute's Center for Re-structuring Government. ``The Legislature controls the judiciary and they are moving to increase and consolidate their control.''

Filed by House Judiciary vice chairman Christopher G. Fallon (D-Malden), the amendments are tucked in among 1,565 other riders, which will be up when debate on the House's $21.8 billion budget opens tomorrow.

The current head of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. David Donnelly (D-West Roxbury), is slated for a vote tomorrow on his own judicial sinecure. A close friend of Finneran's, Donnelly has been tapped for a seat on the Waltham District Court.

Fallon said he filed the riders because he's disappointed that the watchdog panel has failed to act on several high-profile cases.

A complaint is still pending, for instance, against Superior Court Judge Maria Lopez, who berated prosecutors in September 2000 while giving a slap on the wrist to an admitted child molester.

``I do not see any action, whether it be discipline, reprimand, anything,'' Fallon said. ``If we're not getting our bang for the buck, why should we be paying?''

According to the commission's 2000 annual report, the most recent data available, 340 complaints were filed that year. Of those, 311 were disposed - 292 dismissed and 19 ``informally adjusted.''

But Fallon acknowledged the potential for legislative chicanery, and said he would offer a new version giving the watchdog tasks to a citizen advisory panel, instead of lawmakers.

Liberal House members, meanwhile, are gearing up for war against the patronage that's been larded through the judiciary for years.

The nine-member panel assesses complaints against judges, and levies punishments ranging from reprimands to removal from the bench.

The nine-member panel assesses complaints against judges, and levies punishments ranging from reprimands to removal from the bench

Well, they've been doing a real great job. Who let Ebony Horton go, let a judge tell a rape victim "get over it" and released the cannibal child killer back into the world. Tou got it. Massachusetts liberal judges. They should all be dismissed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.