On September 19, I announced: “I’ll be going on modified High-Holy-hiatus until 9/25, although I reserve the right to come back and comment on anything that interests me and won’t keep until then.”
I kept fairly silent, not posting my own pieces, and minimally sticking my nose into the business of others. The one “Room 8” entry I chose not to ignore was this pissing match between EnWhySea Wonk and Rock Hackshaw in which, in keeping with the spirit of the holidays, I tried to play peacemaker, to no avail, telling them that while a little towel snapping in the Room 8 Locker Room was to be expected (and if one couldn't take it, they could always join the Chorus instead), if this sort of street brawling continued, I'd have to see to it that Coach benched the both of em.
I note with distress that the above referenced bitch-fight has drawn more comments (32!?!) than all but one other “Room 8” piece posted during the month of September. It is even more distressing when seen in the context of the winner (by Maurice Gumbs) and the show horse (by the irresistable and unspeakable Brooklyn Fats).
All of these pieces share in-common what are essentially invitations to step outside and settle it in the streets. They are all meta-referenced, self-indulgent and inward-looking, even when dealing (as the Gumbs piece does), with real issues of substance. The theme song running through the lot of them is “We are the World”, even though we are merely one small room in cyber-space. Sigh.
Are we not capable of better? Apparently not, because here comes another one.
While engaged in my annual ritual of reflection, Maurice Gumbs put out the following piece concerning the then impending process for nominating Democratic Party candidates for Supreme Court in Kings/Richmond counties:
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/maurice_gumbs/stand_up_stand_up_stand_up_for_whats_right.html. In the comments section, my failure to offer remarks was duly noted as follows:
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/22/2006 – 5:18pm.
Everyone voted for Vito's judges not one wimp from anyone
reply | email this comment
Where's Gate-mouth?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/22/2006 – 5:24pm.
Gatey. How do you feel, bro? Time to have a few beers?
reply | email this comment
Stand Up, Stand Up, Stand Up
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/22/2006 – 8:13pm.
or a glass of champagne to celebrate your victory Gatey.
reply | email this comment
YODABUBBLE
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/22/2006 – 8:59pm.
Champagne for Gatey? Wasn't that YODA who was running inteference and tackling for Vito and Hikind? Yoda earned the bubblies.
reply | email this comment
Stand Up, Stand Up, Stand Up
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/23/2006 – 12:33pm.
Just think that Gatey and Yoda are part of the same team ….
reply | email this comment
Gatey and Yoda
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/23/2006 – 1:35pm.
I understand Gatey's judicial candidate was shut out, but Yoda is with Hikind true-blue All-County. Gatey's silence and Yoda's feisty post these past few days seem to back that up. Isn't it fun trying to figure out why people act the way they do and say the things they do?
reply | email this comment
Stand Up, Stand Up, Stand Up
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/23/2006 – 7:26pm.
Gatey announced his silence earlier – he's celebrating Rosh Hashonah/
reply | email this comment
Hello
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/23/2006 – 11:28pm.
More likely, Pass-Over
reply | email this comment
Even I laughed, but my comments on Judicial nominating conventions have long been matters of record:
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/curse_you_vic_barron.html
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/gatemouth_s_voter_guide_part_two_judicial_races.html. For those who need further illustration, I will note that on March 23, 2006, I said:
"Reformers", in this instance, divide neatly between those who seek to implement "merit selection", i.e, making the judicial selection process less democratic (by eliminating elections), and those who want to make the selection process more so (by having real ones). At the Supreme Court level, the current process, which involves having party nominees chosen by judical nominating conventions, combines the evils of both systems with the virtues of neither. Some "reformers" will settle for either extreme against the present muddled middle, and I have to concede that even selecting names from a hat or casting lots at Purim time would probably eliminate some of the current system's flaws.”
For those desiring more recent illumination, I note that on September 5, 2006, I also said:
“The recent 2nd Circuit ruling in the Lopez-Torres case will likely result in great changes tin the manner judges are selected in the future; one hopes for the better. Everyone has their own proposal. My current idea is that potential judges put their profiles on JDate or Nerve.com and the voters can chose whether they’d like to do dinner, drinks or just coffee before making a commitment, or just hop right into the sack. Those who scoff at the idea should take note that this is essentially how judges are currently chosen for party nomination to the State’s Supreme Court (which in true New York funhouse fashion is the lowest level of the State’s judicial system), although, ala Cyrano De Bergerac, District Leaders contact each other on the candidate’s behalf, and do it by snail mail, rather than over the web; but, the dating aspect is almost exactly the same, although it will likely soon go the way of the moonlight serenade.
As long as we continue to elect judges (and as I’ve pointed out previously, the alternatives are no more palatable), some changes need to be made. At least in the City, most judges are elected from constituencies which are way too large. It would be far better if Judges were elected from constituencies no larger than an Assembly District, cutting candidates’ cash dependency considerably. I’m also open to considering some form of public financing.
Even more importantly, the process must change for sitting judges, who should be able to minimize their need to raise money as well as their contacts with the political process. Currently, a parasitical claque of “consultants” exist which feed in the manner of bottom fish. Usually they approach sitting Civil Court judges up for re-nomination, and in the manner of Doug and Dimsdale Piranha, say something like “that’s a nice judgeship you have there; it would be ashamed if anything happened to it. If you hire me, I can protect you from a primary…nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.” Unspoken is the threat that, if the “consultant” is not hired, they will find a candidate to oppose the sitting judge. In Brooklyn, such primaries have occurred several times in recent years, and when they haven’t occurred, it is often because such “consultants” have been hired.
In several states, sitting judges ending their terms instead face retention elections. In this system, a sitting judge’s name appears on the ballot alone, and the public gets the choice of voting yes or no on their retention. This has several advantages. Because consultants no longer have a horse in the race paying their expenses, they have no incentive to make mischief. In addition, this system actually makes it easier for the press and good government groups to target the real losers, and no amount of political pump priming or ballot-access lawyering would allow a judge to avoid facing this election. Careful readers of Times endorsements will notice that several times in the last decade, the paper has despaired of having to endorse a less than outstanding sitting Judge because of their abysmal opposition. If there was a simple yes or no vote, things would be far more simplified. If a sitting judge is defeated, an interim successor could be appointed for a year before the seat went up in the next election. “
I ask you folks, could my position on judicial nominating conventions be more clearly laid out?
I have a similar position on the topic of bull-fighting. Like other methods of creating hamburger, it is distasteful, even if the pageantry involved is capable of inspiring moments of awe (as when a candidate armed with signed letters of unequivocal support from over 20 District Leaders gets actual votes from exactly four of them). Surely though, while the alternatives also involve moments of distaste, one of them must be superior.
Concerning my reticence to comment upon the specifics of how this year’s process unfolded, a better comparison might be made to cock-fighting. I think little is gained by reporting on how the recent rule changes instituted by the new Cockfighting Commission, which include the mandated use of safety razors, have improved the game immensely, leading to a better, fairer fight. Even if it were so (and I’m not saying it ain’t), what would it matter? The Judicial Nominating Conventions have rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisibule. They are, literally and figuratively, yesterday’s news. Hopefully, the legislative leadership will wake up, read the court decisions over the smell of their morning coffee, and not attempt to revive them.
As to this year’s Brooklyn Convention? All the candidates went through an Independent Screening Panel of facially acceptable credentials. Unlike in at least one past year, no one complained that the Panel process had been manipulated. In fact, the Panel eliminated at least one candidate whose political connections were quite strong. In the end, four sitting judges, whose credentials apparently range from quite acceptable to possibly outstanding, beat out many other competitors occupying the same general range. Under the current system, that is clearly the best one can hope for. Actually, given the number or turkeys who slip through in any process (Victor Barron first came to the bench through “merit selection”), it might even be better than one could hope for. And, for those who are curious, left to my own devices, I might have chosen a somewhat different slate, but I would not go as far as to argue that there was some inherently superior moral imperative underlying my viewpoint, so I’ll not make the argument here.
Was the process fair? Well, the process, as embodied in our State’s laws, is inherently unfair. In that context, how did this year’s Brooklyn race measure up? Well, instead of the past procedure, where the County Leader announced the consensus he perceived after polling the District Leaders, an actual vote was held, but by that time of the vote, the word had gone out concerning the perceived consensus, so the results were the same. The questions remains, was this really the consensus, or did someone put their thumb on the scale? Those around the county leader say the former, some of those who backed the losers imply the latter. The truth? Now that it’s all an omelet, who can ever know how the eggs were actually cracked? I haven’t a clue, although the lack of a public clamor would seem to be telling; these are not folks known for suffering in silence.
And I’ve next to nothing to say about complaints about real or de facto nepotism. Whether it’s the “political” process of a Judicial Nominating Convention, or the “non-political” (LOL!!!) process of “merit selection”, it clearly does not hurt to have some connection to a powerful political leader. Is anyone really shocked? “Merit selection” will not minimize this advantage, and might actually elevate the already strong influence of interest groups like the Trial Lawyers. The one system that will soften (although not eliminate) the importance of such connections is actual contested primaries. Bring ‘em on! But, please note that not one commentator, almost all hostile, has yet challenged the credentials of the persons in question.
But getting back to this year, those who lament the lack of a contested convention are willfully ignoring the conclusions of two courts, which both found that the conventions were just so much kabuki. Let me offer an apt comparison: There are many valid complaints to be made about the Electoral College, but the idea that it’s a sham, because the electors are not really acting as independent agents, ranks rather low on the list.
So now you know why I refrained from comment; I really had nothing to say.