CA: State Bar vetting group gives high marks to Corrigan

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A judicial vetting committee of the State Bar is ranking California Supreme Court nominee Justice Carol A. Corrigan with the second-highest rating the panel offers, according to documents released Friday.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated Corrigan, a San Francisco appeals court justice, to the state's highest court Dec. 9 to fill the vacancy on the seven-member court created when Justice Janice Rogers Brown resigned to fill a federal judicial post in the District of Columbia.

The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation, which consists largely of attorneys in various practices, told Schwarzenegger that, after reviewing her extensive record as an Alameda County prosecutor, trial judge and appellate judge, that she was "well qualified" for the Supreme Court post. The highest ranking is "exceptionally well qualified."

"Justice Corrigan is brilliant, decisive, articulate, courteous, compassionate, collegial and (a) scholarly bench officer with a solid grasp of varied and complex criminal and civil law issues," wrote commission chairman Todd Irby.

The panel's vetting of Corrigan was to guide Schwarzenegger in deciding on whether he should nominate Corrigan to fill the court's first vacancy in four years.

Still, State Bar ratings historically have not played a huge factor. An "unqualified" rating for Brown did not stop then-Gov. Pete Wilson from appointing her to the high court in 1996.

Unlike the federal system, California lawmakers are not required to approve a governor's pick to the Supreme Court.

Instead, a three-member body called the Commission on Judicial Appointments votes, and is expected to confirm the 57-year-old Corrigan on Wednesday. That body includes Chief Justice Ronald George, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and 2nd District Court of Appeal Justice Joan Klein.

The appointments commission also disclosed it had received 23 letters from the public, mostly from judges and attorneys who gave her favorable marks. A disgruntled former litigant who appeared before the 1st District Court of Appeal, where Corrigan sits in San Francisco, urged the commission to reject her nomination.

Schwarzenegger, when tapping her, told reporters that Corrigan was "the best of the best that we have in the state."

Lockyer also submitted to the appointments commission on Friday anonymous interviews with judges and attorneys.

Some gave her high grades, while others said they were more skeptical. One anonymous prosecutor wrote that Corrigan, as an appellate judge "takes an independent approach to law when it is not appropriate." Another anonymous attorney said she did not exhibit "much depth or reasoning."

Corrigan was born in Stockton. Her mother was a librarian and father a journalist at the Stockton Record. Before she was appointed to the 1st District Court of Appeal here, she was an Alameda County trial judge and prosecutor.

The Republican has left a trail of rulings highlighting her judicial thinking, which veers from conservative to moderate.

In 2001, Corrigan ruled that local governments can seize vehicles of people suspected of dealing drugs or soliciting prostitutes from a car.

That same year, she reversed a Contra Costa County sexual assault conviction on grounds an expert for the prosecution guided the jury to the conclusion that the defendant "was guilty because he fit the profile."

In other opinions, Corrigan joined the majority in 1997 in reversing the convictions of violating a court order for several abortion protesters at a Vallejo clinic. The majority said the government did not prove the protesters were part of a raucous group barred from picketing the clinic.

In February, Corrigan joined a three-judge opinion upholding a Department of Motor Vehicles rule allowing the suspension of a motorist's driving privileges for declining an alcohol test, and said police did not have to prove that the person was operating the vehicle at the time it was stopped.

Two years ago, she joined in reversing the murder convictions of five defendants, ruling the suspects were denied a fair trial because a judge precluded them from fingering a sixth suspect before the jury.

California Supreme Court Nominee Carol A. Corrigan

The Associated Press

http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/5798990p-5815345c.html

NAME: Carol A. Corrigan

AGE: 57

CURRENT POSITION: Associate justice, 1st District Court of Appeal, San Francisco.

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND: Alameda County deputy district attorney, 1975-85; senior deputy district attorney, 1985-87; Alameda County Municipal Court judge, 1987-91; Alameda County Superior Court judge, 1991-94; associate justice, 1st District Court of Appeal, 1994-present. Corrigan also has held several law school teaching positions.

EDUCATION: Bachelor of arts degree, magna cum laude, from Holy Names College, 1970; graduate work in clinical psychology, St. Louis University, 1970-72; law degree from Hastings College of the Law, University of California, 1975.

FAMILY: Single.

Schwarzenegger, when tapping her, told reporters that Corrigan was "the best of the best that we have in the state."

She got the second-highest rating the panel offers?

He took how long to select her?

"the best of the best"?

What does that say about the rest of the state's judges? or does it say more about the Gub? (and his "advisors?")

In other words, Schwarzenegger has nominated another liberal.

Not necessarily but the odds are against a conservative since the appointment is not confirmed by the legislature.

The panel that confirms has one Republican and two Democrats. This process limts the appointment to the center under current circumstances. The last conservative appointed was Janice Rogers Brown. her appointment was confirmed when two panelist on the Commission on Judicial Appointments were Republican and only one was a Democrat.

It says the pickings can be pretty lousy. The article gives several examples of her rulings. Do you have one you see as a "red flag" perhaps "reversing the convictions of violating a court order for several abortion protesters at a Vallejo clinic. The majority said the government did not prove the protesters were part of a raucous group barred from picketing the clinic." doesn't sit well with you?

While she's no Janice Rogers Brown (who is?!), she seems a reasonable pick unlike, oh, maybe Harriet Miers?

The only "red flag" I see is on a personal note and may well continue to contribute to the drift of the state to the left and loosening of societal standards.

This has to do with the sexual orientation of the nominee.

Some would say it's none of our business. Fine.

I say, look at what we already see happening from a societal point of view in state government already. GLBT lobbyists haven't raised a peep about her, for some reason that makes me curious or suspicious, if ya get my drift.

There were other well qualified candidates of color but in the end the Gub has offered up a female replacement instead of a colored replacement.

Also, the makeup of the court would suggest that it remains a predominantly Republican populated court, might that have been one of the reason she changed party affiliations, to make herself an easier pick?

Even tho she appears more moderate than anything, she likely will slide into the seat on the bench. How she ultimately decides to rule will tell exactly what we are getting and confirm that another choice might have been more desireable and beneficial to the state's well-being in the long-term than a "reclaimed" democrat.

You asked, just my observations. ;-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.