The Truth about the Judicial Education Reform Act of 2000
Rather than seizing the opportunity yesterday to address the growing, well-documented appearance problems stemming from privately-funded judicial seminars, the U.S. Judicial Conference went on the attack. Just days after a press flap about the Chief Justice endorsing an appropriations rider that would lift the 11-year-old ban on federal judges accepting honoraria, the Judicial Conference condemned a set of common-sense reforms proposed by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) in their Judicial Education Reform Act of 2000 (S. 2990) as "hasty" and "overly broad."
The statement released by the Judicial Conference is internally contradictory. On one hand, the Conference states the "Judiciary has not had an opportunity to study carefully and comment on the pending legislation." On the other, the Conference couples that assertion with a laundry list of overwrought attacks on the bill's allegedly "sweeping restrictions." Even a cursory check of the Conference's expressed concerns illustrates that the first position is the correct one: the Conference has not closely examined S. 2990.
Judicial Conference Assertion #1:
"The proposed legislation would appear to subject judges to the most restrictive rules of any government officials."
The Truth About S. 2990:
The prohibition on seminar gifts required by S. 2990 is patterned after and no more restrictive than the gift ban that already applies to executive branch officials, including assistant United States attorneys and Department of Justice attorneys that are involved in litigation (see 5 C.F.R. § 2635.201-05).
Judicial Conference Assertion # 2:
S. 2990 would mandate an inappropriate censorship role for the Federal Judicial Center.
The Truth About S. 2990:
Judge Rya Zobel, the former Director of the Federal Judicial Center, recently testified that:
"In all of our judicial education . . . we assure that judges receive balanced and practical explanations of the governing law and its implications, and the economic and scientific factors that increasingly affect litigation."
S. 2990 would simply ask the Federal Judicial Center to play a similar role in ensuring that education seminars funded by the taxpayers are legitimate.
Judicial Conference Assertion # 3:
"The [Federal Judicial] Center is charged by law with providing continuing education for judges and court personnel. For 32 years the Center has ably performed this task."
The Truth About S. 2990:
Actually, this statement is true, and S. 2990 does nothing to limit the Center; in fact, it expands its role in education. The question is why, if the Center has performed ably for 32 years, are lavish, biased, corporate-funded trips for judges necessary?
Judicial Conference Assertion # 4:
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, itself, strongly counsels against undue and overly broad efforts to limit or restrict anyone's access to ideas."
The Truth About S. 2990:
S. 2990 does not prohibit any judge from attending any event of any sort.
S. 2990 simply blocks travel and education gifts offered because of the judge's position as a federal judge. S. 2990 also contains a very broad exception allowing large gifts to judges in any circumstance where a judge "participates in a seminar as a speaker, panel participant, or otherwise presents information." Nothing in the Constitution enshrines the right of judges to receive education and travel gifts from corporations and special interests trying to advance a legal agenda in the courts.
Judicial Conference Assertion # 5:
"This is not a time for hasty legislation"
The Truth About S. 2990:
Nothing about S. 2990 is hasty. Since the practice began more than 20 years ago, the Judicial Conference has repeatedly been asked to address the appearance problems stemming from corporate-funded judicial seminars, held in resort locations. In 1998, several members of Congress demanded that the Judiciary revisit and tighten the ethical standards in this area. The Judicial Conference refused in a report it approved at its September 1998 meeting. Before the Judicial Conference meeting this week, Senators Kerry and Feingold wrote to the Judicial Conference explaining that their "clear preference is for the Judicial Conference to make legislation unnecessary." The Judicial Conference has had more than enough opportunities to act. They have refused to do so. The time for a legislative solution is now.
|
