A circus in state’s high court
Finally the state Senate circus tent has folded surrounding the failed nomination of Hector D. LaSalle as our next chief judge of the Court of Appeals. What a spectacle that was.
Just in time, too, or we would have dueling embarrassments at the expense of our high court with yet another pie-eating contest from Janet DiFiore, our last chief judge.
Maybe it would be too strong to say she resigned in disgrace last August. Call it a pending disgrace, since by resigning, an ethics investigation into whether she abused her position, which was not looking good for the former Westchester district attorney, came to a screeching halt and will now just hang out there in secret limbo until who knows when.
The newest DiFiore flap is over a reported $1-million-a year-for-seven-years perk from the taxpayers that includes a chauffeur and protection detail awarded by the Office of Court Administration, prompted by supposed threats to her life and safety. A perk unique in this universe. Justification for this boondoggle was supported by unsworn testimony during February budget hearings from Chief Administrative Judge Tamiko Amaker, who not incidentally DiFiore was in charge of before she resigned.
Except it turns out a detailed investigation of these supposed threats by Law 365 alleges that they are largely unsubstantiated and/or unreliable and/or not even real threats, and that the testimony given by the administrative judge is full of porkies, as the Brits like to say, or at least major deceptions, omissions and half-truths. DiFiore through a spokesman denies any wrongdoing and the normally tightmouthed Office of Court Administration is sort of standing by its controversial decision, and the administrative judge has promised a letter to the Senate with additional and clarifying testimony.
State Sen. Mike Gianaris, among others, is outraged, and he flat-out said, “Our court system has a serious transparency and corruption problem,” which also may be an overstatement. But maybe not.
Sounds to me like the taxpayers/voters footing the bill here deserve a prompt Senate public hearing on the subject, which just might spur our state inspector general to get on it. And this time, the Senate might consider putting anyone testifying before them under oath. It does wonders for those with law licenses. What planet do these people live on?
What the LaSalle Senate circus and various DiFiore shenanigans have in common is the tarnishing of the image of our high court. An aura of respect over this court is important and it’s under threat at the moment. It is increasingly significant, with an activist conservative Supreme Court in Washington flailing about creating mayhem, that we get back to the top of our game, and soon. We are not there now.
What both the LaSalle circus and general demeanor of DiFiore additionally have in common is that they are side shows, distractions. There is a much bigger game afoot.
If state government gets one thing right in the next month or two, it is naming a new chief judge of the Court of Appeals, and one who works for these
times. The position is the second most important in all of state government, after the governor. In our tricameral system, the chief judge acts as governor, as the capo di capi, for the entire sprawling state judicial system at every level. He, or she, independently runs a third of our government.
Forget about who doesn’t work for us right now, from either extreme, but rather concentrate on the traits we do need in our next chief, then urge the governor to use some sense this time with her pick. What she was thinking, or was advised to think, in thrusting Hector LaSalle on the stage as her first choice remains unfathomable. It wasn’t fair to him, or to us. Unless it was a pure political power play, daring the Senate not to do her bidding. Well, how did that work out?
While Senate members were annoyingly arrogant in how they proceeded, they were dead right about one thing: LaSalle’s history as a prosecutor was a dealbreaker. We already have too many on the high court. They tend not to make complete judges, especially for an appeals court. It speaks to temperament.
Right now, the high court is split between conservatives and liberals. Fine. Live with what we have. Any incoming chief would then be most effective as a centrist who could negotiate with both. A consensus builder, not an ideologue. Someone with a pragmatic bent, who whether personally liberal or conservative would work toward the center where most of us live, preserve stability in the law, and lean on precedent. And someone well steeped in our own constitution, which surprisingly offers a wellspring of civil and human rights that go beyond what the federal counterpart offers.
The person I have in mind is someone as close to the late and legendary and generally magnificent Chief Judge Judith L. Kaye as can be found. She was a giant. We need another one. And please, no more sword swallowers need apply.