Posted on 08/19/2010 2:19:56 PM PDT by MODELSHIPS
Clerk of U.S. Supreme Court admits letters addressed to the Supreme Court have been thrown away so they wouldn't influence the Court.
Foreign law good....input from US citizens bad....got it.
Four, and oftimes five, of the Soopremes need to be led out of their chambers in handcuffs. What happens there is typical of the evil that lurks in Washington, DC!
Is there another source other than this blog ?
Like ethics, 18 U.S.C.§1001 means nothing to them.
The actual letter to the editor describes only “the person who answered the phone” as saying letters are thrown away. They don’t say that person is a clerk.
The article (letter to the editor) does not support the headline.
It is time to throw the clerks away. I suggest the center of the Atlantic.
OK, I will. Supreme Court Justices, heck, any judges, are supposed to rule on the record before them, not on the contents of private letters sent to them. So it is a part of their staff's job, be they a Justice of the Peace, or Justice of the United States Supreme Court, to file 13 letters asking them to rule a certain way in any particular case.
Another case of Birthers trying to imagine a conspiracy out of nothing.
But if want a real story about a clerk showing he was writing the opinion, not the judge, look at the "Talking Heads Opinion." U.S. v. Abner, 825 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1987). The clerk worked all the song titles of an album by the band Talking Heads into an opinion!
Second, it would be unethical for Justices to consider letters from citizens in deciding cases; they are permitted to consider only the legal filings in the case which were served on both sides. (Think for a minute: if you were involved in a divorce case, would you want the judge to read letters from your neighbors claiming you were a bad person, if your lawyer never saw those letters and never got a chance to respond to them?)
Are the justices kept from having contact from Congress critters, since those critters might “influence” them and cause them to not judge on the basis of what’s in front of them?
Can judges watch the nightly news? Is that kind of exposure/influence OK?
Or is it just us little guys who have be be silenced from the dangerous prospect of potentially “influencing” the guys in the black robes?
If true, well that’s kind of their job.
Duties of the Clerk of the Court:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/1.html
Rule 1. Clerk
•1. The Clerk receives documents for filing with the Court and has authority to reject any submitted filing that does not comply with these Rules.
•2. The Clerk maintains the Court’s records and will not permit any of them to be removed from the Court building except as authorized by the Court. Any document filed with the Clerk and made a part of the Court’s records may not thereafter be withdrawn from the official Court files. After the conclusion of proceedings in this Court, original records and documents transmitted to this Court by any other court will be returned to the court from which they were received.
•3. Unless the Court or the Chief Justice orders otherwise, the Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on federal legal holidays listed in 5 U. S. C. §6103.
A Justice may have contact with any member of the public he or she chooses. A Justice may choose to have no contact with any other person in a position of power, if the Justice so chooses. It is more likely that a Justice will choose no contact, because all communications must comply with the Canons of Judicial Ethics. For example, Canon 4 states, "A judge shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations."
Can judges watch the nightly news? Is that kind of exposure/influence OK?
Yes
Or is it just us little guys who have be be silenced from the dangerous prospect of potentially “influencing” the guys in the black robes?
Nobody is permitted to influence a Justice - Everybody has been "silenced." The Justice may decide cases based only upon the record before them - Court transcripts, certifications and affidavits, evidence admitted at trial and the legal arguments of the parties.
If I’m not allowed to be in relationship or communicate with the justice then neither should Congress or Chris Matthews be allowed to be in relationship with the justice.
If Matthews gets to lie to the justices about the facts of the issue (”The HDOH has confirmed the genuineness of the Factcheck COLB”) then why can’t I be allowed to tell the justices the real facts of the issue (The HDOH has confirmed in 2 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery)?
Tell me why some people are more equal than others. Maybe even throw in a Constitutional term so it looks like this is something besides the snobby elite trying to shaft the rest of us.
Who says you’re not allowed any of that?
Mind you, there are long established rules for soliciting the courts and offering information or opinion from the sidelines.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Amicus_curiae
Can I communicate the truth to a SCOTUS justice about what the HDOH has truly confirmed? Why or why not?
Can Chris Matthews communicate a lie to a SCOTUS justice about what the HDOH has truly confirmed? Why or why not?
You are missing the point. Supposing you are right and the judges shouldn’t consider the letters. Was that clerk withholding all letters are selectively screening letters? Big difference!
Are we understanding why there is no out but a total collapse/revolution to rid us of this filth.
Duties of the Clerk of the Court: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/1.html Rule 1. Clerk •1. The Clerk receives documents for filing with the Court and has authority to reject any submitted filing that does not comply with these Rules.
“Can I communicate the truth to a SCOTUS justice about what the HDOH has truly confirmed”
Within the establish rules, you most certainly can.
“Why?”
Because those are the established rules.
“Can Chris Matthews communicate a lie to a SCOTUS justice about what the HDOH has truly confirmed”
Within the establish rules, he most certainly can.
“Why?”
Because those are the established rules.
It's not up to the clerks to throw out personal letters to Justices regardless if they may influence the court. It's not their call to do so. The Justices have the right to read those letters if they choose to do so.
We are.
I never said that. A Justice may choose to have a personal relationship with anybody he or she chooses, just like any other person. No member of the press, Congress or the Executive branch have any greater access to a Justice than you do.
The Justices adhere Canons of Judicial ethics when managing their personal relationships. As a result NOBODY has access to them, if it may even appear to influence their decision in a pending matter. Some states even prevent Judges from attending conferences or accepting speaking engagenments bucause of how they interpret the Canons.
If Matthews gets to lie to the justices about the facts of the issue (”The HDOH has confirmed the genuineness of the Factcheck COLB”)
I do not know where I said that either. A Justice decides a case based upon the record and only the record as it interfaces with the law at issue. EVERY opinion does just that. Do Justices have an ideological bent or perdisposition on certain issues. Of course - just like everybody else. I seriously doubt that public opinion or a talking head would influence that.
These Justices are usually "way out there." When they are not studying the law, they are pursuing some totally esoteric hobby or intellectual pursuit. They live that way because they can, and because the Canons require that they appear free from bias. So you will never see a Justice inject himself or herself into a political issue. When they speak in public the only topic will be the law.
Why do justices need to be sequestered from the input of my letters if they don’t need to be sequestered from liars like Chris Matthews?
The only time you can "make" a Justice receive information is in a Court filing - which by the rules can only comment on the "record", i.e., what the testimony and evidence was at trial. An appeal cannot involve matters not in the "record" because the purpose of an appeal is to determine whether the trial judge acted correctly. An appeal is not a trial, where evidence is admitted.
I hate to burst your bubble, but all of the cuurent memebers of the Supreme Court rely upon their clerks to draft their opinions, and this includes Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy. IIRC, the last Supreme Court Justuce to routinely write his own opinions was the uber liberal, William O. Douglas, who served from 1939 to 1975.
Model Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 4
A JUDGE SHALL SO CONDUCT THE JUDGE’S EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES AS TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS
A. Extra-judicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not:
(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge;
(2) demean the judicial office; or
(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
Commentary:
Complete separation of a judge from extra-judicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the community in which the judge lives.
Expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge’s judicial activities, may cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge. Expressions which may do so include jokes or other remarks demeaning individuals on the basis of their race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. See Section 2C and accompanying Commentary.
B. Avocational Activities. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other extra-judicial activities concerning the law*, the legal system, the administration of justice and non-legal subjects, subject to the requirements of this Code.
Commentary:
As a judicial officer and person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of criminal and juvenile justice. To the extent that time permits, a judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference or other organization dedicated to the improvement of the law. Judges may participate in efforts to promote the fair administration of justice, the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the legal profession and may express opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges in other countries because of their professional activities.
In this and other Sections of Canon 4, the phrase “subject to the requirements of this Code” is used, notably in connection with a judge’s governmental, civic or charitable activities. This phrase is included to remind judges that the use of permissive language in various Sections of the Code does not relieve a judge from the other requirements of the Code that apply to the specific conduct.
Model Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 2
A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES
A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Commentary:
Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge’s conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. Examples are the restrictions on judicial speech imposed by Sections 3(B)(9) and (10) that are indispensable to the maintenance of the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary.
The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired. See also Commentary under Section 2C.
B. A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
Commentary:
Maintaining the prestige of judicial office is essential to a system of government in which the judiciary functions independently of the executive and legislative branches. Respect for the judicial office facilitates the orderly conduct of legitimate judicial functions. Judges should distinguish between proper and improper use of the prestige of office in all of their activities. For example, it would be improper for a judge to allude to his or her judgeship to gain a personal advantage such as deferential treatment when stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense. Similarly, judicial letterhead must not be used for conducting a judge’s personal business.
A judge must avoid lending the prestige of judicial office for the advancement of the private interests of others. For example, a judge must not use the judge’s judicial position to gain advantage in a civil suit involving a member of the judge’s family. In contracts for publication of a judge’s writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge’s office. As to the acceptance of awards, see Section 4D(5)(a) and Commentary.
Although a judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office, a judge may, based on the judge’s personal knowledge, serve as a reference or provide a letter of recommendation. However, a judge must not initiate the communication of information to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide to such persons information for the record in response to a formal request.
Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees seeking names for consideration, and by responding to official inquiries concerning a person being considered for a judgeship. See also Canon 5 regarding use of a judge’s name in political activities.
A judge must not testify voluntarily as a character witness because to do so may lend the prestige of the judicial office in support of the party for whom the judge testifies. Moreover, when a judge testifies as a witness, a lawyer who regularly appears before the judge may be placed in the awkward position of cross-examining the judge. A judge may, however, testify when properly summoned. Except in unusual circumstances where the demands of justice require, a judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness.
“An appeal is not a trial, where evidence is admitted.”
You should have been here when a radical segment of the birther crowd had convinced themselves that any number of things would grant them carte blanche discovery.
A judge declines to levy sanctions, well that’s because that would grant the plaintiff discovery!
An appeal of sanctions? That’ll get discovery!
Filing a fourth appeal? Discovery for sure!
Judge goes out for coffee? Discovery! Discovery!
Those were interesting times.
So why does a letter have to be thrown away?
You know....the Bill of rights says that the people have a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances...The Supreme Court is part of the government, ergo these clerk’s should be fired and properly punished for breaking the law and violating people’s Constitutionally protected rights.
So let me get this straight, it's ok for the non-appointed, unelected law clerks to influence the decisions of the court, but not for the average citizen? By their own reasoning, shouldn't these clerks be fired too?
Yeah. Sounds fair to me. After all, we wouldn't want them to influence the Court now, would we?
Chris Matthews is allowed to say what he wants on his TV show, and the justices can choose to watch or not. You are allowed to say what you want in your blog, and the justices can choose to read it or not.
Why does a Justice have to read it?
So that no credible argument can be made that the Justice saw it and was influenced by it.
You "petition" the Supreme Court to address your greivances through a "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari," not a letter or other corrupt communication that seeks to influence the Court to decide a case based on information that was not in evidence in the trial level court.
Clerks do not "influence" a Justice. A Judge's Clerks assists in legal research and writng. The Court also has among their Clerks, secretarial and mail room staff, who are the ones that throw out the impermissible attempts to influence decisions with information that is not in the "record."
An Appellate Court may decide a case based upon the evidence accepted by the trial level Court, and not other factual information:
CANON 2
A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.RULE 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
COMMENT
[1] An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.
But I can’t point out my blog to the justices.
Can Matthews advertise his show to the justices?
And what about Obama meeting personally with SCOTUS when there was a court case pending regarding him? Any problem with that?
I suppose not, because Obama is such an inarticulate bimbo - not potentially dangerous or influential regarding the case he’s in like a housewife from Nebraska speaking her mind about a case she’s not a party to.
Sure you can. Rent a billboard near their house and put the URL on it, or buy time on a local radio station. You have the same right to promote your blog as Matthews does to promote his TV show.
And what about Obama meeting personally with SCOTUS when there was a court case pending regarding him?
I'm not sure there's anything to be done about that. Every president has court cases against him, and they still have to be able to appoint justices and so on. We just have to assume that if he tried to use a meeting to inappopriately influence their rulings, they'd tell him to take a long walk off a short pier.
But if I tried to “inappropriately influence their rulings” by writing a letter the whole system would have to hover over the justices and swoop in to remove the danger because I might overpower them with my awesome presence.
Good thing they know how to protect these guys from the dangerous big guns, eh?
lol. I guess we'll need a ruling from the Supreme Court on what the definition of "petition" is.
I agree that the judiciary should be impartial. However, what is worse, writing a letter to a judge expressing your opinion, or going into the judges chambers to speak privately with the judges like Obama did a few months back at the SCOTUS. Or what about the time when Obama publicly intimidated the Supreme Court at the State of the Union. If we're going to not allow the average person to talk to SCOTUS judges, then it only makes sense that we've got to stop the powerful politicians from doing it too.
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.