Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 05/19/2005 4:36:15 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
WASHINGTON -- U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother were shot by a man who probably wanted to kill her, too, came out of seclusion Wednesday to say that "harsh rhetoric'' about judges from evangelist Pat Robertson and lawmakers must be renounced.
Members of Congress need to "publicly and persistently repudiate gratuitous attacks on the judiciary,'' Lefkow told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"In this age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous," Lefkow said. "It seems to me that even though we cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship between rhetorical attacks on judges in general and violent acts of vengeance by a particular litigant, the fostering of disrespect for judges can only encourage those who are on the edge or on the fringe to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them.''
"I know that we believe passionately in free speech in this country,'' said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the panel. "But I believe that many public officials, both elected and otherwise, have made verbal attacks on the federal judiciary which we should not tolerate."
WHAT THEY SAID
"We seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that has been on the news. I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions, yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds and builds to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification, but that is a concern I have that I wanted to share.'' --Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) Liberal activist judges are "destroying the fabric that holds our nation together.'' "If you look over the course of a hundred years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.'' --The Rev. Pat Robertson
The courts' refusal to reinsert Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was a "perfect example of an out-of-control judiciary." "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." --House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
Declines to discuss plans
Lefkow was quite direct in her testimony before the committee, which she delivered as her four daughters sat a few rows back, holding hands for support.
She came at the invitation of Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) with a lot of suggestions on how to improve security for judges.
The hearing, originally set for April but postponed, by coincidence ended up on the opening day of a showdown in the Senate on the very nature of how the nation selects its judges.
After testifying at the hearing and meeting with Illinois reporters, Lefkow declined to discuss her plans. She took issue, politely, over understaffing of the Chicago U.S. marshal's office. So much so that judges who may need protection are "reluctant to ask,'' she said.
She emphasized to Specter that judges need professional help in assessing risks. That lack of advice, she told Specter, led her to not insist on more or ongoing protection after U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald visited her in December 2002 to tell her a white supremacist was plotting to kill her.
"It's difficult for me to talk about this because I can say, you know, if I had done this, if I had done that, this might not have happened,'' she told the chairman.
Lefkow has thought a lot about what could be done in the future -- and what should have been done in the past -- since murders in her Edgewater home on Feb. 28, a day that for her family is "our own personal 9/11.''
Requires political will
Her husband, Michael, and mother, Donna Humphrey, were shot by Bart Ross, a disgruntled plaintiff who appeared before Lefkow in a medical malpractice case that she dismissed. Ross later committed suicide.
Some of the things Lefkow talked about will take money, including beefing up the U.S. Marshals Service. Some items are legally complicated -- stripping information about judges from the unfettered Internet and limiting the commercial trafficking of personal data. Some prods will be needed to get $12 million Congress recently appropriated for judicial safety swiftly into the pipeline to be spent on home security systems for judges.
But another matter Lefkow bluntly confronted is one that takes neither much time nor money, but does require political will.
She named Robertson but did not identify the members of Congress. In recent weeks, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) were forced to backtrack after making what some took as inflammatory remarks about judges.
'Over the line'
"I have come to know scores of judges during my 22 years as a magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge and district judge. Whether a liberal or conservative, I have never encountered a judge in the federal judiciary who can remotely be described as posing a threat, as Mr. Robertson said, probably 'more serious than a few bearded terrorist who fly into buildings.' ''
Referring to liberal judges in a May 1 interview on ABC's "This Week,'' Robertson, a conservative activist, said that "if you look over the course of a hundred years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.''
The hearing was sparsely attended by senators, in part probably because of the unusually early starting time -- 8:30 a.m. Specter and panel member Durbin listened to Lefkow, as did Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is not on the panel.
"Some of the comments that you referred to, from Reverend Robertson and some of the members of Congress, clearly went over the line,'' Durbin said.
Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson, founder and director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, said Wednesday it would be very difficult to limit information on the Internet in this "information rich'' era.
Lefkow was shocked to learn how easy it was for anyone to find her address. Nesson said it will be tough to find a law that is "going to come along and create a hiding place.''
IN HER OWN WORDS
Highlights of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow's testimony: "Two-twenty-eight is our own personal 9/11. Since 2/28, our family includes a daughter and her husband who have to explain to their young children why their grandfather is now with God and they will never see him again; two daughters who will not have their beaming father to walk them down the aisle at their weddings in the coming year, and two who will not have Dad to be there to join the fun at their upcoming graduation from high school and college. From now on, they will have a father's guidance only through the memory of what he was to them. . . . An entire family has lost its ability to feel safe when we walk through the door of our own homes.''
*****
"I come to you with a plea that you who have the power, continue to make judicial protection a priority as is reflected in the recent passage of the HR 1268, which includes $12 million to the Marshals Service for increased security for federal judges, specifically for home intrusion detection systems. And that you be vigilant in monitoring judicial security so that sympathetic feelings translate into something real for us."
*****
"I also urge your support for legislation that prohibits the posting of personal information about judges as well as other public officials on the Internet without their written consent. I had, in my local court, asked that some online research be done about each of the members of the committee just to try to illustrate to you what is out there on the Internet free of charge or for a mere $20. And it is really shocking what can be found on the Internet."
mailto:lsweet3022@aol.com
CHICAGOLAND PING
What a bunch of worthless tripe.
Tough darts! Judicial tyranny has made this bed, now judges have to sleep in it.
Maybe she should look into the reasons for Judges being criticised.
Most of the attack on judges lately is due to their being conservative women and minorities or Catholics.
A district Judge playing "what if" games to the mere politicians of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Calling
for what we are repeatedly told ought not be acceptable in any Court of law( a demand for protection /judicial action without any proof of harm done) Shocking.A woman
in the stage of Grief she clearly is passing through ought
be accomodated--but her comments taken in light of her affliction-- it would be foolish to act upon her request
for it is not based in judicious reality.
The fact that the crazy who murdered her family had nothing at all to do with the supremicst in jail who threatened her didn't stop her from her ludicrous complaint.
It's a wonder she didn't blame Mark Levin outright for daring to write his book.
Or Rush Limbaugh for daring to criticize some in the judiciary.
I had some casual dealings with Lynn Sweet early in her career. She made it very clear that she knew which people and which groups of interest in the media controlled the prestige and opportunities for advancement in her chosen career. She made it very clear that she worked for them. In the same way that an attorney does "whatever it takes" to help get his client off, she worked for the interests of the people whose approval she sought.
BTW, sometimes that worked to the benefit of my agenda at the time.
Might we still continue to remark that the judiciary is self-serving, power-hungry, corrupt, out-of-line, out-of-step with the constitution, flatulent and incompetent, after shutting down any anti-judicial rhetoric?
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Yet, no word about the left calling Bush nominees extremists who will take away basic rights.
More liberal hog slop.
Liberals will continue to protect their only means of passing laws, contrary to the will of the people, since they've lost everything but the judiciary.
That a sitting judge, who is sworn to protect the Constitution, will openly suggest that we do away with the First Amendment as it pertains to the judicial branch of government shows more than arrogance. It brings into question Judge Lefkow's ability to do her job.
That Senator Durbin agrees with her brings into question his own ability to protect and defend the people's rights to freedom of speech.
Here we see two branches of government agreeing on silencing any rhetoric against the abuses of judicial power. Will Senator Durbin suggest that all "harsh rhetoric" against members of Congress be silenced as well?
A lack of respect for constitutional rights amongst the judiciary is wide spread and growing. It's for this very reason that federal judges are being held up to examination by the public, and that sort of examination makes for a healthy political system. Obviously Judge Lefkow and Senator Durbin would prefer a more dictatorial type of political system.
Mr. Durbin, kettle...black.
The hypocricy here is mind numbing. Durbin and his collegues have been relentlessly excoriating Bush's judicial nominees for months if not years. Most of the rhetoric directed at these nominees is much worse than the examples cited in the article.
And after the tragedy that befell her family, she ends with a special interest request/endorsement for the federal government to spend more money.
It occurs to me that I was in her line of work, and married to a lawyer, and living in the city of Chicago, I would probably have had an alarm system installed already.
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.