These are the musings, ramblings, rantings and observations of Houston DWI Attorney Paul B. Kennedy on DWI defense, general criminal defense, philosophy and whatever else tickles his fancy.
Friday, December 15, 2017
I vaguely remember something about motions and lemons from law school
Prior to serving as head of the FEC, Mr. Petersen served as the Republican chief counsel to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Prior to that he served as counsel for the Committee on House Administration. From 1999 until 2002 he practiced election and campaign finance law at Wiley Rein LLP in D.C.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Petersen has never tried a case before a jury. He has never tried a case to a verdict. He has never argued a motion in court. But that's not even the best part.
This week he was one of five nominees to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings on their nominations. Each senator was given a grand total of five minutes to ask the nominees questions on their qualifications to serve on the federal bench.
Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) made the most of his time. He asked Mr. Petersen a series of fairly innocuous questions about legal procedure that a judge would be expected to know. The result was, on the one hand, hilarious as a lawyer nominated for a judgeship tells a senator that he knows next to nothing about the law. On the other hand, it is quite disturbing to think that people who are as unqualified as Mr. Petersen could sit as a judge for life making decisions that affect everyday folks.
Here is the video. Have a great afternoon.
A special shout out to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D.-RI) for posting this video on his Twitter feed.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
He must have answered an ad on the internet
Call it cognitive dissonance.
Call it political opportunism.
Call it whatever you like after Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asked the White House to withdraw Brett Talley's nomination to be a U.S. District Judge in Alabama.
And he got his wish as either Mr. Talley or the White House withdrew his name from consideration for the bench.
If you remember, the American Bar Association rated Mr. Talley "unanimously unqualified" for the position after his testimony that he had never set foot in a federal courthouse in his capacity as a lawyer.
Despite the ranking from the A.B.A., the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Grassley voted 11-9, along party lines, to approve Mr. Talley's nomination and to send it to the Senate for a confirmation vote. Which means that the very man who called on the White House to withdraw the nomination, voted for it in committee.
By the way, both John Cornyn and Ted Cruz voted in favor of the nomination despite the fact that Mr. Talley was not qualified to sit on the bench. But what the hell, boys? He has an R after his name and we need all the R's on the bench we can get, don't we?
Oh, what, pray tell, did Sen. Grassley discover that he didn't already know before voting to approve the nomination?
Was it the fact that he failed to disclose that his wife worked in the Office of the White House Counsel? Was it the fact that he was a ghost hunter? Was it something about his support of the KKK?
I find it hard to believe that in this day and age no one had any knowledge of these matters. I think it was only after they became public that some Republican senators decided they couldn't afford to vote in favor of his confirmation -- even though they voted to approve the nomination.
It is customary in the Senate for the senior senator of the President's party either to submit a name for nomination or to give his consent before a person is nominated. Sen. Richard Shelby, the senior Republican senator from Alabama, announced his opposition to the nomination when the wind started blowing a bit harder. At some point he, too, had to have gone along with the nomination.
While this matter is humorous in a way, it is also quite scary when you stop and realize that he was appointed for a lifetime post. While there are many judges of all political stripes appointed to the federal bench who are well-qualified to sit on the bench, there are some nominees who have no business getting near the inside of a federal courtroom.
Mr. Talley was one of those. Everyone involved in the process by which his name was put forward by the White House should be publicly shamed.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
This isn't being recorded, is it?
She also has no business sitting on the bench based on a complaint filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that details comments the judge made at a function at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law in February of this year. (Click here to read the complaint.)
In her lecture entitled "Federal Death Penalty Review," Judge Jones made several interesting assertions that cast doubts on her fitness to sit on the bench.
Judge Jones claimed that the death penalty has actually helped inmates by allowing them to make peace with god in the minutes leading up to their execution.
She claimed that blacks and Hispanics were more predisposed to committing violent crimes and more likely to commit violent acts than members of other ethnic groups.
According to Judge Jones, claims of innocence, racism and arbitrariness regarding the death penalty are merely "red herrings."
She also said that banning the execution of mentally retarded defendants was a bad idea.
And, as if that weren't enough, Judge Jones also claimed that Mexican nationals preferred death row in the US over prison in Mexico.Her comments raise questions over her ability to hear cases involving minority defendants. They certainly seem to indicate the color of the defendant's skin would have an effect on her decision. Her beliefs that there is a religious basis for the death penalty and that by killing an inmate we are doing him favor is extremely troubling.
It is a bit scary to sit back and realize that we wouldn't be any wiser about her beliefs on race, ethnicity and the death penalty if she hadn't felt the need to broadcast her opinions in front of a law school audience. This incident does serve to highlight one of the problems with the federal judiciary - while it can be a benefit that federal judges are immune to the political pressure that state judges feel, it can be costly to society when those judges with life tenure hear cases while spouting off racist nonsense.
I'm sure at some point we will hear from Judge Jones. I'm fairly certain she will make the non-apology apology by saying she's sorry if her comments offended anyone. And that response will be utter and complete bullshit. There is no question that her comments were offensive. If she really wants to apologize she will stand up in front of a microphone, acknowledge her prejudices and ask for forgiveness.
Anything less will just be window dressing.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Judge admonished for his "lack of judgment"
Kozinski has said he thought the material — which included a video of a man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal and a picture of nude women on all fours painted to look like cows — couldn't be seen by the public. The judge has also said he didn't believe any of the images were obscene.
"Is it prurient? I don't know what to tell you," he told the Los Angeles Times in a June 2008 interview. "I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life."
Kozinski told investigators he sometimes saved e-mail attachments in a subdirectory without looking at them. He said he did not realize they would become available to the public when the family later put a file server online so they could access personal files when away from home.
Judge Kozinski blamed on that good ol' chestnut, a lack of judgment. Funny how that seems to work for those in positions of authority but woe be to poor young person who has one drink too many and is arrested for DWI or who tries to shoplift a couple of small items from a department store. Neither the prosecutor nor the court wants to hear about their lapse in judgment.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Judge not lest you be judged
Thomas Porteous, a U.S. District Judge in New Orleans, is facing a possible impeachment over allegations he perjured himself regarding a bankruptcy filing and accepted gifts and money. He has been suspended from the bench. Judge Porteous filed for bankruptcy under a false name and attempted to hide evidence of his gambling losses. Porteous escaped criminal sanction as a result of the immunity he was granted as part of the disciplinary process.
Edward Nottingham, a U.S. District Judge from Denver, is being investigated due to his hobbies of going to topless clubs and frequenting escort services. Judge Nottingham has defended himself by blaming his problems on his own weaknesses. Funny, but that never seems to matter to the prosecutors at the Harris County (In)justice Center.
Manuel Real, a U.S. District Judge from Los Angeles, is in hot water as a result of his failing to provide reasons for his legal decisions -- admittedly a very important part of what a judge is supposed to do.
Finally, Alex Kozinski, a Federal Appellate Judge for the 9th Circuit, decided that putting sexually explicit material on his personal website was a good idea. I guess he never saw the commercial warning teenage girls not to post photos on the internet they wouldn't want their parents to see. Judge Kozinski requested that the investigation be conducted by another circuit.
All five judges are still being paid -- and will continue to be paid, as per the U.S. Constitution, until such time as they resign or are removed from office. Nice work if you can get it.