Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York
INTRODUCTION
This is my first State of the Judiciary message as the Chief Judge of the State of New York. Months ago, I was expecting to give a live address at Court of Appeals Hall in Albany, similar to those given by some of my predecessor Chief Judges-and next year, maybe I will. But 2010 is very different from earlier years, and this will not be a typical State of the Judiciary message.
Published by: Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.
The Brennan Center Fair Courts E-lert summarizes news stories and editorials related to the independence of judges and the courts, including material attacking, defending, and concerning the judiciary.
————————————————————————————————-
In his provocative Opinion piece Our Fill-in-the-Blank Constitution in the April 13 New York Times, Geoffrey Stone examines this question and more. He emphasizes that contitutional law is not a mechanical exercise in just applying the law, a fact that needs always to be considered in the selection and evaluation of judges and justices.. Here are two excerpts from the article:
“AS the Senate awaits the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, a frank discussion is needed on the proper role of judges in our constitutional system. For 30 years, conservative commentators have persuaded the public that conservative judges apply the law, whereas liberal judges make up the law….”
“So, how should judges interpret the Constitution? To answer that question, we need to consider why we give courts the power of judicial review – the power to hold laws unconstitutional – in the first place. Although the framers thought democracy to be the best system of government, they recognized that it was imperfect. One flaw that troubled them was the risk that prejudice or intolerance on the part of the majority might threaten the liberties of a minority. As James Madison observed, ( http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_bor.htm ) in a democratic society “the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended … from acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.” It was therefore essential, Madison concluded, for judges, whose life tenure insulates them from the demands of the majority, to serve as the guardians of our liberties and as “an impenetrable bulwark” ( http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s50.html ) against every encroachment upon our most cherished freedoms.”
@ the Center is the flagship e-newsletter of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). It highlights major projects, publications and conferences related to the work of NCSC.. Even though this newsletter is of redcent vintage (still Volume 1) it has already caught the attention of many in the judiciary. If you are interested in more information click here. Below are highlights of the March 2010 issue.
Volume 1, Issue 6 March 2010
Budget resource center expanded Interactive maps show extent of cost cutting across the country
Thanks to Carole Levitt, President of Internet for Lawyers, for alerting us to the “key steps to improve public access to feferal courts by increasing the availability of court openions and expanding the services and reducing the costs for many users of the Public Access to Electronic Court Records (PACER) system”.
Below is Carole’s e-mail with a link to an Interner for Lawyers newsitem on the topic.The newsitem in turn contains links to both the March `16, 2010 Judicial Conference Press Release and to The Cybersleuth’s Guide to the Internet.”
March 18, 2010
Two days ago I posted information on this blog related to the New York Court of Appeals decision (Maron v. Silver, 16 ‘ Larabee v. Governor, 7 ; Chief Judge v. Governor, 18) addressing judicial compensation in that state within the framework of separation of powers. Today I have learned that the State of Connecticut is also confronted with separation of powers issues related to its judiciary. These issues relate at least in part to the unilateral reduction of Other Judicial Expense line items (where the law libraries are placed) by the Office of Policy and Management (Executive Branch) after the initial budget allocations have presumably been agreed upon.
Of special concern to many readers of this blog is the severe negative impact these judicial line item reductions are having on judicial law libraries in the State of Connecicut, as indicated in testimony of the Connecticut Chief Court Administrator to the Appropriations Committee included in this post and by the many expressions of concern among Connecticut citizens as reported elsewhere.
The Chief Court Administrator of Connecticut, Judge Barbara M. Quinn has argued before the Appropriations Committee on February 9 that the unilateral reduction of Other Judicial Expense line items by the Executive Branch infringes on the Separation of Powers and can be remedied by OPM simply transmitting the Judicial request unchanged to the legislature. Two sections of Judge Quinn’s testimony are especially important and are highlighted below in this posting. The section on Law Libraries which highlights the importance of law libraries in Connecticut to both the Judiciary and the public has relevance both in Connecticut and throughout the nation. A second part of Judge Quinn’s testimony highlighted below is her statement on “Concurrence in Allotment Reductions and Rescissions,” which frames the issue nicely.
February 23, 2010
In a 5 – 1 decision the New York Court of Appeals found that the legislature and the executive branches had undermined the independence of the judicial branch by tying judges pay raises to unrelated legislation, including bills to raise legislators own salaries, thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine. The last pay raise for New York judges was in 1998.
In his dissent Judge Robert S. Smith stated that while he shares his colleagues’ dismay at the Legislature’s behavior in dealing with, or rather failing to deal with, judges’ salaries, he “cannot agree that any of its actions or inactions are unconstitutional….”
The current Chier Judge of the Court of Appeals, Jonathan Lippman, recused himself from the deliberations because he was a plaintiff in one of the cases the ruling addresses.
Public Statement of Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, delivered on February 23, 2010 at 1:PM.
Here are excerpts from the beginning and end of the decision:
PIGOTT, J.:
“The constitutional arguments raised in these judicial compensation appeals are premised upon, among other things, alleged violations of the New York State Constitution’s Compensation Clause and the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Because the Separation of Powers doctrine is aimed at preventing one branch of government from dominating or interfering with the functioning of another co-equal branch, we conclude that the independence of the judiciary is improperly jeopardized by the current judicial pay crisis and this constitutes a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.”
Conclusion It is unfortunate that this Court has been called upon to adjudicate constitutional issues relative to an underlying matter upon which all have agreed; namely, that the Judiciary is entitled to a compensation adjustment. By ensuring that any judicial salary increases will be premised on their merits, this holding aims to strike the appropriate balance between preserving the independence of the Judiciary and avoiding encroachment on the budget-making authority of the Legislature. Therefore, judicial compensation, when addressed by the Legislature in present and future budget deliberations cannot depend on unrelated policy initiatives or legislative compensation adjustments. Of course, whether judicial compensation should be adjusted, and by how much, is within the province of the Legislature. It should keep in mind, however, that whether the Legislature has met its constitutional obligations in that regard is within the province of this Court (see Marbury v Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 [1803]). We therefore expect appropriate and expeditious legislative consideration.
Accordingly, In Maron, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by remitting to Supreme Court for – 35 – No. 016; 017; 018 – 35 – further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, and as so modified, affirmed.
In Larabee, the order of Appellate Division should be modified, and in Chief Judge, the judgment of Supreme Court and the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by granting judgment declaring that under the circumstances of these cases, as a matter of law, the State defendants’ failure to consider judicial compensation on the merits violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and by allowing for the remedy discussed in this opinion, and, asmodified, affirmed.
SEE FULL TEXT OF DECISION AT:
New York Court of Appeals Judicial Compensation Decision February 23, 2010
Continue reading
From the New York Times February 17-18, 2010.
The following are two very informative profiles from the New York Times:
The first profile contains both information about Hon. Jonathan Lippman and emphasizes the impact he has had during his first year as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals:
Volume 2 Number 1
January 7, 2010
State Courts & the Economy is an e-newsletter published by the National Center for State Courts.
Includes both useful resources and a request for information from the courts.
Nora Sydow reports that the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has recently developed a Social Media and the Courts web module. Included in this module is a state links page that links to courts that are using Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. In an effort to make this page as complete as possible, we are asking for your help.
(1) If your court is using a social media site, could you please send me the link(s) so we can include them in our state links page?
Criminal Law Library Blog