Things in the air. Some observations with varying degrees of introspection.

This blog is supposed to be dedicated to architecture, basically, although matters pertaining to the law do show up here.  Very rarely is there anything on the practice of law.  

This is an exception, but really not a cheerful one.

The State bar convention is going on.  I never go it, but now you can attend some of it electronically.  I did that yesterday as I needed the CLE credits, I wish I hadn't.

The first CLE I attended I picked up as I needed the ethics credit.  It was an hour of "mindfulness" which is usually a bunch of bullshit suggestions on how to deal with stress that you really can't implement in the real world.  That's what it turned out to be, in part, but it descended into "this job really sucks" for an hour.  All of the panelists, including a judge and a justice, had to have counselling at some point in their careers for work stress.

I hope some students were in the audience to see that.  If even Wyoming Supreme Court justices say the practice is so bad they need psychological help to endure it, well that's pretty bad.

The last CLE of the day was the legislative panel.  Usually I think of that as being new laws that are coming down the pipeline, which it partially was, but the first part started off as a plea from a lawyer/legislator for lawyers to run for office, noting how in Wyoming that's declined enormously.  That turned into an outright dumping on the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, which needs to be dumped on.  The last part of that session, however, dealt with the ongoing massive decline in civil practitioners putting in for judgeships.  They just aren't doing it.  They were urged to do it.

As noted, I wasn't there to ask a question, but if I had been, I'd have asked why should they, when Governor's have agendas and the current Governor is only really interested in appointing prosecutors.  It's extremely obvious.  The one before that would almost always pick a woman, if possible, and was very open about that.  If you are a male civil practitioner, just forget it.

Justice Kautz, who is now the current AG, noted how being a judge, and particularly a justice, was a great job for a law nerd.  The last panelist, a current Fed defender who was a private lawyer with a very wide practice, noted how he had put in many times and urged people to do so, even though it was disappointing if you did not make it.

It's disappointing for sure.

For me, hearing Justice Kautz talk was outright heartbreaking, as what he expressed made up the very reasons I wanted to be a judge and replied repeatedly, with no success.  I never even got an interview, even though at one point I was being urged by judges and members of the judicial nominating committee to apply.  I'm frankly bitter about it even while knowing that I should not be.  It's hard not to come to the conclusion that the system has become a bit of a fraud, frankly, particularly now that the committee has been rounded out to include non lawyers in it.  I've felt for some time that the Governor's office had an influence on who was picked, even though I have no inside knowledge on that sort of thing.  It's just a feeling, and not a good one.  When judges are picked which leave almost all the practitioners wondering what happened, it's not a good thing.

It leads to me listening to everything Justice Kautz said about the reasons he wanted to be a judge, and myself realizing I once felt those things, but I no longer do.

Back on the stress part of this, a lawyer I've known for a long time, but who is quite a bit younger than me, recently took a really neat vacation.  He came back to the office and announced he's leaving the law.  I was so surprised I called him.  He revealed that being on vacation had taught him he didn't have to live a miserable life.

As noted, it's not cheerful.  Perhaps its ironic, therefore, that the much longer post I took this from started off with:

Cheerfulness strengthens the heart and makes us persevere in a good life. Therefore the servant of God ought always to be in good spirits.

St. Philip Neri.

Well, it's hard to see how we lawyers are Servants of God.  Indeed, I fear out dedication to money has been such that we're getting to the point that's all we're the servants of.

Judges, lawyers describe perils of attacking judiciary at Grand Teton National Park gathering

Judges, lawyers describe perils of attacking judiciary at Grand Teton National Park gathering: Legal professionals attending a Wyoming conference look to citizens to stand up for safety and independence of judges.

Limiting Jurisdiction.

The House passed legislation on Wednesday that would bar federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, part of an escalating Republican campaign to take aim at judges who have moved to halt some of President Trump’s executive orders.

The bill, approved mostly along party lines on a vote of 219 to 213, would largely limit district court judges to issuing narrow orders that pertain to parties involved in a specific lawsuit, rather than broader ones that can block a policy or action from being enforced throughout the country. It would make an exception in cases that were brought by multiple states, which would need to be heard by a three-judge panel.

The New York Times. 

 

Trump Bans Northern Arapaho Tribe's Law Firm From Federal Contracts

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. . . The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. . . The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

Chief Justice John Roberts reacting to putative chief executive Donald Trump demanding impeachment of a judge who disagreed with him, as they often due due to his contempt of the law.

Standing for the rule of law. Hagen Scotten.

 

Standing for the Rule of Law. The letter of Danielle R. Sassoon.

What if Trump Just Ignores the Courts?

Lex Anteinternet: Biden proposes changes to the framework of American government.

Lex Anteinternet: Biden proposes changes to the framework of America...:  

Biden proposes changes to the framework of American government.

 Joe Biden, in an op ed in the Washington Post (a poor way to make major proposals, in my view) proposed some major structural changes to the framework of U.S. governance today.  The proposals are:

1.  A Constitutional Amendment making it clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.

2.  Term limits for Supreme Court Justices such that a President would appoint a justice every two years for a term of 18 years on the Court.

3.  A binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court.

On these, fwiw, I think a Constitutional Amendment would be justified, but I'd go further than what's stated.  I don't support any kind of immunity at all.

On term limits, I don't support that either, but would support age limits.  Once a Federal Judge reached age 60, or at least no older than 65, they'd be required to retire, including members of the Supreme Court.

On a code of ethics for the Supreme Court, it's a good idea, but I don't know how you impose one, given the independence of the judiciary.

The Jury.

The entire time I've been a lawyer. . . well, no, well before that, I've been told that one of the "greatest" things about "the world's greatest judicial system" is that it uses juries.

Most legal systems do not, and those that do, have tended to pick it up from the English Common Law system, often through American influence.  Save for Louisiana, we use the English system, and the English system has long used juries.  

The system has evolved over time.  Originally it was an effort to gather those from the area where an event occured, and was truly a jury of peers. The danger was that they actually knew you, and therefore may be inclined to judge your guilt or innocence based on that, which was part of why it was conceived of as a good system. Over time, while it was still supposed to be a jury of your peers, they were picked, through the voir dire process, for their fairness.

I'm not about to say that juries always get everything right. They don't.  But lawyers are taught to respect the process and the juries, and for good reason.  Frankly, more often than not, juries are right.  Not always, but holding them in contempt is wrong.

The jury that found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felonies this past week in Manhattan was made up seven men and five women, and included two attorneys, a software engineer, an e-commerce sales professional, a security engineer, a teacher, a speech therapist, an investment banker and a retired wealth manager.   That is a highly educated jury, and frankly that probably truly is a jury of Trump's peers.  Leaving two lawyers on the jury is bizarre, as lawyers only rarely make a jury panel, although I've known one who did.  I've been called for jury duty once and did not get picked, as I didn't expect to be.  Having two lawyers on the panel is phenomenal.

It'd be interesting to know how that occured.  Trump's defense team may have thought that the lawyers would regard the charges as strained in regard to election interference, which a lot of legal analysts did.  They may have, instead, helped the jury wade through the piles of stuff they had and arrive at the conclusion which they did.

Anyway you look at it, they arrived at the opinion they arrived at, and that needs to be respected.

Which Wyoming's elected officials are not.

The jury has been slammed by all of our Congressional delegation, two of whom are lawyers, the Governor and the Secretary of State.

It's tragic.

Wyoming makes frequent recourse to the courts as a state, and now it's attacking the judicial system.  There's utterly nothing whatsoever to question the nature of this jury on.  It appears to have been well qualified for its role.  There's no reason to suspect that New York's legal system is deficient in any way.

It's inexcusable to attack the jury.