Replies

we've deconstructed this "judicial appointments" thing on other threads. NYC uses a merit panel based method of appointment (most judges are elected), the mayor just can't arbitrarily select anyone they want, they select from a slate sent up by a panel. the city is 9:1 Dem, so you can imagine how these panels function from a political perspective.

another freeper uncovered the fact that two such judges, Rudy refused to accept the panel's recommendation (I assume for cause, ethics I imagine, but I do not know):

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/forum/Koch.html

But if you look at this article (comments from Ed Koch), this stands out:

"NEW YORK SUPREME COURT JUDGE HELEN FREEDMAN WAS RECENTLY THE SUBJECT OF GIULIANI'S DEMEANING LANGUAGE IN HIS EFFORT TO TERRORIZE HER AFTER SHE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY'S HOMELESS FAMILY RIGHTS PROJECT, LED BY COORDINATING ATTORNEY STEVEN BANKS, IN THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY'S ONGOING CASE AGAINST THE CITY.

GIULIANI, ACCORDING TO THE POST, SAID FREEDMAN HAS BEEN ISSUING "IRRATIONAL ORDERS" TO MAYORS FOR 13 YEARS. "IT'S ABOUT TIME SHE STEP ASIDE," HE SAID. CONTINUING, "ANY JUDGE THAT HOLDS A CASE FOR A DECADE OR MORE SHOULD GET OFF THE CASE BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY BECOME THE PURVEYORS OF POLICY RATHER THAN DECIDERS OF CASES THAT COME BEFORE THEM." HE VICIOUSLY AND PERSONALLY ATTACKED FREEDMAN -- AND SAID, "SHE ISN'T RULING ON THE LAW, SHE'S RULING ON HER OWN PERSONAL IDEOLOGY." IF THAT WERE S0, SHE WILL BE REVERSED ON APPEAL"

does that sounds like a person who supports liberal judicial activism on the bench? just the opposite is what I read there.