Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court of the United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court of the United States. Show all posts
Partisan politics will probably ensure Kavanaugh nomination succeeds.SCOTLAND’S former top judge once said: “I do not know that we would want to have a judiciary here that is like the one in the United States. It depends on your personal point of view. I do not give you my view, but I am sure that you can guess what it is.”
Admittedly, anyone watching last week’s Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing where Judge Brett Kavanaugh - President Donald Trump’s nomination for the Supreme Court of the United States – responded to allegations from Dr Christine Ford that he attacked her, during their school years – may well think Lord Brian Gill’s comments are a beacon of sanity against Kavanaugh’s now widely mocked beer drinking amid the reporting of further allegations against him by at least two other women.
In some respects, Gill is correct.
Would anyone here want a judge like Brett Kavanaugh sitting in the Court of Session?
Most people, certainly outside the strange, ivory tower world of the judiciary & legal clique, would probably say a resounding “No”.
Yet here is the quandary – The world only found out about Kavanaugh’s temper, anger & rage – amid the accusations against him – because the judicial nomination process in the US is televised and open.
Here in Scotland, and the UK – the process of judicial selection and appointment is a very secretive, closed door affair where only in the past few years – due to the Scottish Parliament probe on judicial interests – has questions of the judiciary’s attitude against transparency revealed case after case where judges are simply not being honest with litigants, the courts, and ultimately the public with regards to their interests, and cases which come before our own judiciary.
So, even though Lord Gill’s disdain for the US system of judicial selection does have it’s merits, we in Scotland, and the UK still deserve to find out much more about our judiciary and how they are appointed, than a few pages of redacted FOI disclosures, and that very judicial anger for anyone asking for transparency.
Video footage of last week’s Senate Judiciary where Dr Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testified, is well worth a watch:
Developments since the testimony, including details of the allegations by Dr Ford, and others - are widely reported in the US media however, one of the more relevant debates revolves around the tone and demeanour of Brett Kavanaugh during his testimony, revealing a rage from an experienced Judge of 12 years, which the public all across the world should take note of.
A judge and his rage.
The elderly, angry Senate Judiciary members – in their publicly funded jobs, some for up to 40 years, exhibiting the same self centred sense of entitlement exhibited by Judge Kavanaugh - even came out and supported his anger – for reasons they claim that he was unjustly accused.
Yet, if you ever ask a judge to comment on why anyone other than a judge may feel anger at being unjustly accused … you are often met with the same angry response that it is for judges to decide who can and cannot be angry if ‘their court’ convicts the wrong individual for crimes they never comitted.
Indeed, ask a judge why he failed to declare an interest in a multi million pound damages claim, you will often encounter a very rabid response, backed up with the same venom and malignancy we have seen in the Kavanaugh saga.
Quite a thing to see the anger of the judiciary spill out in public, when their sense of entitlement and demand for high office – comes up against scrutiny, and in the case of Kavanaugh – allegations he attacked a woman – Dr Christine Ford – who testified before the same Republican dominated Senate Judiciary Committee which is now hell-bent on sending Judge Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
And – just like how Justice Kennedy’s retirement came out of the blue - watch out for further sudden retirements from the US Supreme Court, which will enable the Trump administration to stack the court even more in favour of vested interests.
One last thing - Kavanaugh said during his opening statement that he travelled with President Bush “…from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham Palace to the Vatican”
It would be quite interesting to see how many interactions Judge Kavanaugh had with the UK judiciary and political system … however, in our ever decreasing transparency & growing anti Freedom of Information culture in the UK, you can be sure little, if anything will ever emerge.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh faces Senate Committee.FOR THREE days this week, citizens in the United States of America, and anyone across the globe has been able to tune into the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary nomination hearings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh – for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
The hearings, broadcast via C-SPAN – the Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network – have been a regular occurrence for several years now, airing to the public hearings where elected senators of the US Senate are able to quiz nominees for judicial posts in the US – including those nominated by the sitting President for a position on America’s top court.
After the death of Justice Anthony Scalia in in 2016, and the blocking of former President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to join the US Supreme Court, President Trump has already succeeded in adding one Justice - Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court - in April 2017.
Now, President Trump’s second nomination to SCOTUS – Judge Brett Kavanaugh – who has stirred up significant controversy amid allegations of thousands of papers being withheld from scrutiny during his involvement in previous White House administrations - looks likely to be confirmed, despite concerns on Kavanaugh’s responses to significant issues of public concern raised by the minority Democratic Party Senator members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Without examining who did what and when – and there is a lot of this to consider – the fact these hearings take place in public, where members of the judiciary are rightly quizzed by democratically elected representatives in a national legislature as to their views on law, legal precedents, their past work, experience, and so on – is a bonus to transparency, public awareness of the law, the courts, and the role of the judiciary,
The Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh are available at the following links, for viewing:
Among several shorter clips of the hearings posted by C-Span, is the series of questions from Senator Kamala Harris to Judge Kavanaugh – which is well worth watching – here:
For more on the hearings, events at the US Supreme Court, and campaigning groups calling for reform of accountability and transparency at the US Supreme Court, please visit the excellent website of FIX THE COURT.
Fix the Court is a national, non-partisan grassroots organization created to take the Supreme Court to task for its lack of accountability and transparency and to push Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s eight associate justices to enact basic yet critical reforms to make the court more open and honest.
It educates the American people about the many problems plaguing the court and its justices and is building a movement of conservatives, independents and progressives demanding change with a common voice.
For more information on the reforms Fix the Court is pursuing, click here.
A world away from the United States & Senate Committees quizzing members of the judiciary, here in Scotland, as in the rest of the UK, judicial recruitment and appointments more or less come down to members of the judiciary appointing members of the legal profession, often personally known to them – to plush, well salaried, powerful positions within Scotland’s judiciary.
Judicial Appointments in Scotland – as demonstrated by the appointment of Lord Carloway (Colin Sutherland) to what became little more than a simple elevation of Carloway as Lord Justice Clerk to that of the grandiose title of Lord President and Lord Justice General – aka Scotland’s top judge – are a behind closed doors process which the public, media, elected representatives have absolutely no role to play, or right to see.
All that the public, Scottish Parliament MSPs and media were able to inspect of Carloway’s appointment, were disclosed in a Freedom of Information request, published by DOI in April 2016
SECRETLY SELECTING A PRESIDENT, SO SECRETLY:
How judges select Scotland’s judges - in secret The selection panel for the office of Lord President - of which Lady Dorrian was a member – considered five candidates for the position of Scotland’s top judge – according to papers released by the Scottish Government in response to a Freedom of Information request by the media.
While there was significant speculation during 2015 that a female judge would be appointed to the top judicial post of Lord President, the unpredicted shift away from a male only top judge did not happen this time around.
Responding to queries, the Scottish Government refused to disclose the genders & diversity information relating to any of the candidates for the top job, citing privacy concerns.
Written exchanges between civil servants and the selection panel reveal a short listing meeting was held on 1 September 2015. The panel considered that two applicants Lord Carloway [Redacted] merited an interview on the basis of the quality of their applications.
The panel agreed that given the level of appointment, candidates needed to be able to demonstrate that they met the criteria to an exceptional degree [Redacted].
The content of the selection panel’s report recommending Lord Carloway for the nomination of Lord President, was completely censored by the Scottish Government.
Emails between Scottish Government show First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had decided on Lord Carloway’s nomination as Lord President around 18 November 2015. Lord Carloway’s appointment as Lord President was finally made public a month later in December 2015.
The disclosure, heavily redacted, and composed of twenty two short pages of meagre detail – are a far cry from public judicial nominations in the United States, handled by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
And, there is a reason for this – revealed by none other than Lord Carloway’s former boss – Lord Brian Gill – who was described by Lord Neuberger during a valedictory speech in London as an ‘iron fist in a velvet glove’ - just weeks before Gill’s secret divorce of his long time wife was revealed in the Scottish Sun newspaper.
During early November 2015, Lord Gill – who had stood down after a testy, tumultuous three year term as Lord President in which he battled overwhelming backing for a register of judicial interests – finally gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament, and on the subject of judicial recruitment, Brian Gill told MSPs of his complete disdain for the US Justice system, attacking the way in which judicial nominees had to face questions from those outside the judiciary’s carefully closeted world.
Official Record: Petitions Committee 10 November 2015
Angus MacDonald: Thank you. It was important to get that fundamental view on the record.
What is your view of the fact that the United States of America has successfully introduced a register of judicial interests? Has the system in the States increased public confidence in the judiciary?
Lord Gill: I do not know that we would want to have a judiciary here that is like the one in the United States. It depends on your personal point of view. I do not give you my view, but I am sure that you can guess what it is.
Angus MacDonald: I will not pick up on that particular point.
Has there been any evidence on the impact that the US system has had on the independence of judges or the way in which the media treats judges in the USA?
Lord Gill: I would be very sorry to see a judiciary in which candidates ran for election and in which candidates' election campaigns were based on fundraising from companies and corporations that might be litigants in their courts. I would also be very sorry if the day ever came where, before appointment, judges had to come before a committee of this honourable legislature for confirmation and for examination of their political, ethical and social views.
In between refusing to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament, Lord Brian Gill spent his time on international travel, and giving a lecture on judicial ethics while on a taxpayer funded state visit to Qatar – a country not known as a haven of transparency or human rights.
A year on from the confrontation between Lord Gill and the Scottish Parliament – only after two refusals to give evidence – MSPs await to hear from Scotland’s current top judge Lord Carloway – who, like his predecessor, given an equally hostile opinion on the very notion of judicial transparency and requirements of judges to declare their interests.
The proposals before the Scottish Parliament received cross party backing from MSPs during a full debate at Holyrood during October 2014 - Debating the Judges - call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.
Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary.
