52 Weighs to Pick Some Judges

Domestic Partner: Gatemouth, have you finished the speech about your dad yet? Please, please, please don’t tell me you are writing another column!

In writing a speech for my father’s 80th birthday party being held tonight in Asbury Park, I am reminded of the triumphant one I gave at his 60th which included a not only recitation from Bob Dylan’s “Forever Young,” but these stirring words:

“I visited my mom at my parent’s real estate office in Hackensack and asked her what she liked best about being married to my father.

She said, ‘Coming home every night to a loving husband; it’s such a relief after working all day with that son of a bitch at the office”’

And the curse of my life is that I am expected to top that.

At first, I figured, what the hell; I’d just give the same speech again. Like everything else I’ve said to my father for the past two decades, he’s not going to remember it anyway.

Actually, that’s unfair. My father has a great memory. He can tell you something, and ten minutes later, he’ll be repeating the thing to you again, word for word.

This seemed a promising line of thought, but really, there’s only so many Alzheimer jokes you can use for a room full of 80 year olds, and while I can probably get away with one or two Cialis jokes, I’m really stuck here.

So, I am probably the only person in Brooklyn not running for a judgeship who’d rather be talking about judicial nominations.

Tonight, while I’m grasping for a good joke, the 52nd Assembly District Democratic County Committee will be holding an attending its Annual Meeting from 3 pm to 6 pm at St. Francis College (Remsen & Court) in Brooklyn Heights.

The important part of this meeting is they will hear from the candidates for Civil Court and Supreme Court and we will vote on their preferences.

For more details see here.

As District Leader Chris Owens notes, this is the first time in decades that such a meeting has been held. Kudos to Owens and his co-leader Joanne Simon for taking the lead.

Given the complicated and not yet certain matter of who will be running for which assigned vacancies, and the fact that Screening Panel for Supreme Court nominations (done at a Convention after the primary) has not yet rendered a report, the rules for this meeting are beyond the comprehension of even most law school graduates, but really cannot be said to be overly complicated.

Most importantly, I have been assured that, whatever the results today, the rules will ensure that all endorsements are subject to findings of the party’s Screening Panel.

I basically like this idea, but I have a few thoughts, some of which are critical, but are intended to be constructive.

1) There is a paragraph in the rules which makes reference to approval by “every relevant screening panel,” which allows the District Leaders to determine who is relevant. Since the whole purpose of this endeavor is supposed to be transparency, this is not necessarily a comforting provision.

My personal position is that the Party Panel is probably sufficient (and necessary for inclusion, as the Party rules bar an endorsement of anyone found not qualified by that Panel), but if there are to be other panels used, they should be named NOW.

2) There is no indication that there will be given any note on the ballot of who is an incumbent.

Judicial offices are different that others. Incumbent Judges have been barred, usually for a decade or more, from any political activity, and this is a good thing.

Further, incumbents have hopefully bound themselves to the law. To subject them the same process as those running for open seats is somewhat problematic.

I support asking judicial candidates running for open seats questions which let us know something about their values and ideology. By contrast, to subject incumbent judges running for renomination to such questions (which recently happened at one club), except when they have displayed fanaticism or incompetence, presents potential dangers to judicial independence.

Barring some extreme misbehavior, the re-nomination of competent sitting judges should be virtually automatic. In fact, the efforts by Vito Lopez and Clarence Norman to unseat a sitting Civil Court Judge (Margarita Lopez Torres) was one of the great blots on their record, and a cause precedent to instituting the Party’s Present Screening Panel.

The first threshold one needs to get through in choosing judicial  candidates is the competence question.

Once through that, other questions can then be raised, depending upon whether one is considering an open seat or a vacancy.

I think one gets to ask candidates for open judicial vacancies (including Judges seeking elevation), values based questions, and questions about their past political activities.

I think once a judge is sitting, unless they are seeking elevation, the questions must be far more limited.

It is hard to comprehend the rules posted here, but they seem to me to pose a danger that sitting judges will be considered in the same manner of those seeking to fill a vacancy.

I strongly believe that a meeting like this one should not be lumping incumbents seeking renomination in the same vote with those running for open slots. I really believe those positions should be balloted separately, and if that is not possible, the incumbent should be noted on the ballot.

To do otherwise is not a way to ensure a non-political bench, and not a way to ensure Judicial Independence.

I hope the ballot actually given out at this meeting makes clear which candidates are incumbents seeking renomination, and which are candidates seeking either to challenge such judges, or to run for a vacancy.

Beyond that, I have a few words about some of the candidates.

Though I support renomination of all the incumbents, a special word is merited for a couple of them, since they illustrate an important point, which is that, judging a candidate solely by their political affiliations rather than their qualifications, is something we disdain when Regulars do it, and we should not do it ourselves.

Peter Sweeney is seeking renomination for the Civil Court. He was initially elected as the candidate of a slate which was put together by political operative John O’Hara, who readers know I’ve had my tangles with. O’Hara has been a longtime enemy not only of Party regulars, but of people like Jim Brennan and Joan Millman.

And yet Sweeney (unlike the woman he ran with, who is now off the bench) turned out to be an outstanding and well-respected judge, who was, by merit appointment, made Administrative Judge of the County Civil Court, and now serves (by merit appointment) as an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court.

If this convention fails to support Sweeney’s renomination, they will have failed to properly do their job.

Among the Supreme Court incumbents, whose renominiations I all support, is Larry Knipel, who I’ve known since we worked together trying to make Al Gore our President back in the 80s.

Judge Knipel came in for not a bit of disdain from “Reformers” when he was one of the candidates who ran for the open position of County Surrogate against the “Reform” candidate, Margarita Lopez Torres.

Knipel, was then, as now, an outstanding Judge, but in campaigns mud sometimes gets thrown. I suppose I harbor some sentiment for Knipel because back when a bunch of ignorant bigots in my neighborhood tried to stop a battered women’s shelter (I was leading the Pro-Shelter forces), he was the Judge who handed them their heads.

I also like Knipel’s wife, even if she is not my first choice for Borough President. So, if you support him for me, do it for Rock.

Also notable among the incumbents is David Friedman, who serves in the Appellate Division.

Finally, a note about a personal friend, Lizette Colon, who is asking to be considered for both Civil and Supreme slots. Lizette has served in practically every non-judicial position in the Courts; Court Officer, Court Clerk, Court Interpreter and Law Secretary. She was also a Colonel serving in the JAG in our current entanglements abroad. She is also a Community Activist and the mother of an autistic child.

While I make no endorsements at this point in time, I think Lizette brings some unique experience to the bench which might very well insure to the public benefit.

Congrats to Chris and Joanne for putting this meeting together. My hopes for its great success.

Uncategorized