"For years, Judge Eleanor Ross’s secret was passed down from law clerk to law clerk. They whispered about..."

"... the sultry jazz music that emanated from her chambers when a uniformed police commander, a man they called her 'visitor,' disappeared into her private office. The clerks could sometimes hear the unmistakable sounds of sex from behind the door.... While the clerks said they might have been willing to overlook isolated personal foibles, they were more broadly disturbed by the lack of attention Judge Ross paid to the civil disputes that came before her.... It was not unusual to go weeks without hearing much from her except for a brief email — 'Please docket.' — a few minutes after they sent her a draft order, three clerks told The Times. They estimated that she provided edits on roughly 5 percent of the civil orders that they drafted in her name, and even then mostly just for grammar or typos...."

From "Sex, Lies and Secrets: A Federal Judge’s Trysts Go Public Now, Judge Eleanor Ross’s career and caseload are under scrutiny. And her punishment, a private reprimand, has sparked backlash" (NYT).

The Times tells us that "the décor in her chambers" included a photo of Ruth Bader Ginsburg festooned with a quote from a Beyoncé and Drake song: "All them fives need to listen when a ten is talking."

I tried to find out exactly what "sultry jazz music" the judge played. I was unsuccessful, but here's a Spotify playlist titled "Sultry Jazz":

To what extent can a judge — or anyone else — use her/his private office for activities other than the job? I assume it's fine to take a nap or do calisthenics or read a novel or stare into space.

ADDED: "Was that wrong? Should I have not done that?... Because I've worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time."

"Mr. Trump first proposed a Garden of Heroes during his first term, at a time of widespread protesting over the murder of George Floyd in police custody."

"Protesters had toppled statues of Confederate generals and leaders, and in some instances vandalized monuments to national icons like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Trump denounced those actions as attempts to 'erase our values' and he signed an executive order authorizing the monument garden. The election of Joseph R. Biden Jr. as president interrupted those plans, but since Mr. Trump took office for a second time, he has taken the project up again in earnest.... Should Mr. Trump leave office without finishing his signature projects, the next administration would be faced with choices about whether to finish them or abandon them.... 'I don’t think it’s like the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, where it was this great project of Gaudi and people said, "No, we must finish this,"' [said Ken Lum, a sculptor, professor and Chair of Fine Arts at the University of Pennsylvania School of Design]. 'I think there’s going to be a lot of debate in terms of, "We don’t need to finish this. Maybe we should even take it down."'"

From "Trump’s Vision for ‘Garden of Heroes’ Keeps Getting Bigger and Higher in Cost/Plans for the project include formal gardens, reflecting pools and plazas alongside the statues of 250 notable Americans, according to documents obtained by The New York Times" (NYT).

Makes me think of that high-speed train in California. We don’t need to finish this. Maybe we should even take it down.

Anyway, here's the list of the 250 heroes for Trump's "garden," complete with bios seemingly presenting the argument for why they rank as the top heroes.

"My law clerks would be wasting 30, 45 minutes, an hour, developing a chronology of events. This thing does it instantaneously.... I’m not strictly relying on an AI tool. … It’s just an extra set of eyes."

Says Xavier Rodriguez, a federal judge in Texas, quoted in "Judges are increasingly using AI to draft rulings and prepare for hearings/A study found over 60 percent of surveyed judges have used AI in their work, even as some experts worry AI’s unreliability could compromise their authority" (WaPo)(gift link).

A study found over 60 percent of surveyed judges have used AI — that is to say, over 60 percent admitted to researchers that they've used AI. I've got to wonder what percent have used AI. How was the question asked? Was it "Have you used AI?"? Because what does "use" mean? Maybe things that aren't really substantive don't count. Maybe it doesn't count if you only rely on things you — that is,  your clerks — have double checked.

"Some conservative appellate judges, many of them Mr. Trump’s appointees, have also used vociferous language... to mock their colleagues’ reasoning..."

"... and sound off about what they call the 'woke' agenda and various culture-war issues. The almost satirical style sparked debate across the legal community earlier this month, when Judge Lawrence VanDyke repeatedly used a profanity to refer to male genitalia in a dissent from a ruling on a transgender discrimination case. He wrote that his use of 'indecorous language,' helped 'bear the truth.' Twenty-seven of his colleagues from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed, admonishing him in their opinion for 'vulgar barroom talk' that 'makes us sound like juveniles, not judges.'"

From "Some Judges See Risks in Fiery Opinions Warning of Threats to Democracy/Federal judges are weighing strategies for how to respond to the high stakes, anonymous threats and politicized atmosphere of the Trump era" (NYT)(gift link).

So what's the big "profanity"? It's the expression "swinging dicks," and it appears 3 times — is that "repeatedly"? — in VanDyke's opinion:

This is a case about swinging dicks.

"A jury convicted a Wisconsin judge Thursday of obstructing federal agents’ arrest of an undocumented immigrant from Mexico..."

"... giving President Donald Trump’s administration a rare win in its prosecutions of public officials who have challenged his agenda. The jury found Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of a felony, obstructing an official proceeding, but acquitted her of a misdemeanor, concealing a person from arrest. The verdict came after six hours of deliberations and Dugan could be sentenced to up to five years in prison.... Dugan... will no longer be able to continue as a judge because Wisconsin’s constitution bars people convicted of felonies from holding public office.... Many on the right said Dugan’s conduct was part of a 'deep state' mentality that had led to lax enforcement of immigration laws.... Some have sought to make this case about a larger political battle,' [said Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.] 'While this case is serious for all involved it is ultimately about a single — a single bad day — in a public courthouse. The defendant is certainly not evil, nor is she a martyr for some greater cause.'"

WaPo reports.

It might seem odd that the judge was convicted of the felony but acquitted on the misdemeanor, but the misdemeanor required showing the act of hiding the person. 

From the prosecutor's closing argument: "'She was a frustrated and angry judge who was fed up, who decided to corruptly take matters into her own hands."

"Judge Block once told a defendant of Asian origin that, if he skipped bail, the judge would 'have egg foo yong on my face.'"

"He told a Black prosecutor in 2015 that it was 'good to see so many dark faces in the courthouse,' and called a discrimination case a 'stupid little trial' within earshot of a juror.... [W]hile presiding over a trial of a drug dealer in 2007... [h]e told prosecutors in the case that seeking the death penalty was 'absurd' and a waste of taxpayer money.... Judge Block stands by his approach, noting that in the case of the Asian defendant, 'everyone in the courtroom laughed,' and that he would 'do the same thing again.' Though he said he regretted the 'dark faces' comment, he said it was taken out of context, and that he meant it as a compliment. 'I’m the least bigoted judge on the bench,' Judge Block said."

From "At 91, an Idiosyncratic Judge Prepares for His Latest Big Case/Judge Frederic Block will oversee the prosecution of Rafael Caro Quintero, a Mexican drug lord, which could end in the death penalty. In the meantime, there’s stand-up comedy to keep him busy" (NYT).

"The D.C. Circuit is notorious for having a very far left bias. And when you look at the people closest to some of these judges..."

"... where are they working? Are they working at these NGOs? They're the ones getting this money. Does that seem like a system that lacks corruption? Sounds like corruption to me."

Said Elon Musk.

Devastating if true, so there's a strong motivation to prove it's not true. And yet, it's hard to disprove this charge, lobbed in the direction of a group of perhaps 11 judges and the "people closest" to them.

"The Court does not reach this result lightly. It recognizes the paramount importance of a free press in our society and the critical role that confidential sources play..."

"... in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge. Yet the Court also has its own role to play in upholding the law and safeguarding judicial authority."

Said U.S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper, quoted in "Journalist Catherine Herridge held in contempt for not revealing source/The veteran correspondent for CBS and Fox News was ordered to pay $800 a day in a case that had triggered alarm for press advocates" (WaPo).

Resigning, a UK transgender judge writes, "Rosa Parks’ choice of seat was political because of the colour of her skin. More prosaically, for me..."

"... I am now political every time I choose where to pee. Less prosaically, the judiciary by continuing to let me be a judge is now at risk of being political.”

From "UK’s only trans judge quits over risk of ‘politicising the judiciary'/Victoria McCloud said she had become a target and was forced to be political every time she chose ‘where to pee'" (London Times).

McCloud kept her trans identity out of the public eye for much of her time as a judge until her status was revealed by a national newspaper in 2016....

"This is not his first rodeo. He is going to be quite careful and thoughtful about how he handles this situation."

"I’m sure he’s thinking about when he draws lines, how he draws lines, what the lines mean and what agenda it plays into."

Said Katherine B. Forrest, a former federal district judge, about Lewis A. Kaplan, federal district judge in the ongoing E. Jean Carroll trial. She's quoted in "As Trump Treats Trials Like Rallies, Judges Study How to Rein Him In/One judge was reluctantly permissive. Another came down hard. Their contrasting approaches may inform the jurists overseeing the former president’s criminal trials" (NYT).

I don't think Trump is treating his trials "like rallies." Have you seen his rallies? He's far more restrained in court. But he is using something of his own style and is finding ways to take what has been thrown at him and turn it into useful political discourse. What should a judge do? If he cracks down too hard, he's giving Trump new material. 

How do you like the expression "This is not his first rodeo"? I try not to let it annoy me. I try to be amused. I picture the 79-year-old judge on a bucking bronco. 

Even Michael Caine — even as he pronounces "rodeo" ro-DAY-oh — says "ain't." 

 

BONUS: Warning: language:

"The neutral-tinted individual is very apt to win against the man of pronounced views and active life."

Wrote Theodore Roosevelt, quoted in "Theodore Rex" (available atAmazon, whence I earn a commission).

He was referring to Alan B. Parker, who became his adversary in the 1904 presidential election, and I quote the passage from the book in full because it seems to have something to do with how we react to candidates today and because I have liked colorless politicians (and judges) — perhaps too much:

Are you paying attention to Schedulegate?

I just coined the term, but check out "Judge Aileen Cannon’s Games in Florida May Delay Other Trump Trials" (Daily Beast) and "Judge Cannon's rulings put other Trump cases in 'limbo'" (Raw Story) and "Judge Cannon Just Stealth Shivved The Trump Docs Case/Girl, please. We see you" (Law and Chaos).

The NYT is live-blogging Trump's testimony at the civil fraud trial.

Let's check in, here. 

"The people call Donald J. Trump" and "Trump plods to the witness stand."

Questioned by Kevin Wallace, a lawyer for the attorney general, Trump answers "in monosyllables."

The NYT writer says Trump "took the bait" when he answered a question about the legal trust that holds some of his assets: "You and about every other Democrat, district attorney, A.G., and U.S. attorneys, etcetera, were coming after me from 15 different sides, all Democrats, all Trump haters." I note the use of freewheeling language in "15 different sides." That's not monosyllabic. He's dabbling in hyperbole.

Now the judge is warning: "Please, just answer the question. No speeches."

"While a prosecutor was interviewing potential jurors, [Judge Traci] Soderstrom apparently observed that he was 'sweating through his coat' and called him 'an arrogant asshole.'"

"Later, as the prosecutor questioned a witness, the judge [texted the bailiff], 'this is dumb' and 'he looks constipated.' During opening statements, Soderstrom opined that the defense attorney was 'awesome' and 'so smart,” asking the bailiff, 'Can I clap for her?'...  At another point, she appeared to have made up her mind about the case prematurely, musing that the 'state just couldn’t accept that a mom could kill their kid so they went after the next person available'... [A]fter the bailiff made a 'crass and demeaning reference to the prosecuting attorneys’ genitalia,' the judge reportedly responded with a laughing emoji.... As a witness watched a video from the stand, the judge reportedly texted: 'This shit is boring.'"

From "An Oklahoma Judge Mocked a Prosecutor’s ‘Baby Hands’ Mid-Murder Trial" (NY Magazine).

The judge has been suspended and may be removed. Her 500+ texts to the bailiff became public after this video went up on YouTube, revealing the judge using her phone to check social media and text. In the old days, the judge's mind would wander and maybe there would be sleeping or reading, but texting shows.

(You might be thinking sleeping shows, but I think, legally, that's always called "resting my eyes.")

"Now, the fact that a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned doesn’t mean that the judge is partial."

"The public may simply not trust the impartiality of the judge. Because public trust in the work of the court is a value as important as the work itself, the rule says that the judge should not sit when we can’t fairly ask the public to trust what the judge does. That rule is especially important in this case. One thing the prosecution can do is move to recuse Judge Cannon on the ground that, in light of her experience in the search-warrant case last year, her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. And who would make that judgment if the government does push for this recusal? The judge herself gets to make that decision in our system. If she denies the recusal, the government could go to the Eleventh Circuit and ask it to order her to recuse herself... a process called mandamus.... Mandamus efforts are rarely successful...."

Says lawprof Stephen Gillers, interviewed in "Will the Judge in Trump’s Case Recuse Herself—or Be Forced To?/Federal law requires a judge to step away from a case in which her impartiality 'might reasonably be questioned'" (The New Yorker).

The judge — Aileen M. Cannon, assigned the case through the routine and random selection process — is a Trump appointee.

If the random selection had been a Biden appointee, would that judge also have to recuse herself/himself? If Cannon were to recuse herself, and she is replaced by a Biden appointee — or an appointee of any Democratic President — wouldn't Trump's demand for recusal be at least as strong as the prosecution's demand that Cannon recuse herself? We'd be talking about fairness to the accused. 

"The public may simply not trust the impartiality of the judge" — the public doesn't trust the impartiality of anything here. That's the problem with the pursuit of political goals through the criminal process... or the appearance that's what you're doing. The argument for recusal in this case is an argument about the appearance of partiality, but the appearance of partiality is baked into this case. Can anyone suggest how to unbake it?

Did the Stanford president and the Stanford law school dean apologize for what the DEI dean said to calm the students who were shouting down Judge Kyle Duncan?

That's what Ed Whelan asserts over at National Review. He says:

In an obvious reference to DEI dean Tirien Steinbach’s bizarre six-minute scolding of [Judge Kyle] Duncan, their letter observes that “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.”

As you know, I defended Tirien Steinbach.

A harrowing scene at Stanford Law School. ADDED: What the associate dean of diversity, equity, and inclusion did was just fine.

Stanford Law students shouted down Fifth Circuit appellate judge Kyle Duncan while he was trying to speak.

When he asked for an administrator to control the situation, Stanford’s “associate dean of diversity, equity, and inclusion” got up and lectured him for nearly 10 minutes pic.twitter.com/tjlUPOIMmQ

— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) March 11, 2023

ADDED: I embedded this tweet without listening to much of the "nearly 10 minutes" of "lectur[ing]," because I had to run out to catch the sunrise, but I listened to the audio track very closely while I was out, and now I need to say that I disagree with the text of the tweet.

I think the dean handled the situation well. The dean — whom Fox News identifies as Tirien Steinbach — says that she has come forward because the judge asked for an administrator to do something to restore order.

Responding to him and needing to manage a noisy group of students, she spoke in a "thinking out loud" way that openly considered various factors: the protesting students' passion and outrage, the judge's position of power, the interests of the students who wanted to hear the judge and welcome him, the schools' interest in making students feel valued and supported, and the traditional free-speech preference for active debate and more speech. She made her points quickly and clearly, and she successfully invited the students who didn't want to hear the judge to leave the room, and she seems to have convinced the remaining students to hear out the judge to save time for the Q&A after his speech.

The Fox News article disparages Steinbach as "emotional" and "frustrated," but that she struck me as professional and appropriate. If you're going to call other people "emotional" and "frustrated," you'd better be sure you're not emotional and frustrated. I know it's absurd to ask mainstream news media to play it straight and keep it factual, but it's my absurdity, willingly embraced.

ALSO: The judge was Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee. Here's his Wikipedia article where you will easily find material that explains the students' hostility.

Judges ought to write in a way that "ordinary citizens can understand" because it "constrains the power of politicians or talking heads to shape or warp the narrative."

Said Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, quoted in a Reuters article with, ironically, a headline that's hard to understand, "'Judges gone wild': Trump-appointed judge says too many write for Twitter." 

I thought, from that headline, that some judges were actually posting on Twitter and going wild there! 

But Bibas was talking about opinion-writing. He objected to...

"My hands are tied. In all my years on the bench, I’ve never been in this position before, and it’s all due to the government, despite calling this the crime of the century, resolving it with a . . . petty offense."

Said Judge Beryl A. Howell, quoted in "Chief federal judge in D.C. assails ‘almost schizophrenic’ Jan. 6 prosecutions: ‘The rioters were not mere protesters’" (WaPo).

Why, she asked, when prosecutors called the riot an “attack on democracy . . . unparalleled in American history,” were [Jack Jesse] Griffith and other participants facing the same charge as nonviolent protesters who routinely disrupt congressional hearings? “It seems like a bit of a disconnect,” Howell said — “muddled” and “almost schizophrenic.”...

On Thursday, Griffith told the judge his behavior was “truly disgraceful.” “I am ashamed of the way I acted,” he said. At the time of the break-in, he said, he thought it was a “minor inconvenience” for police, but now he understand they were “crippled by fear and wildly outnumbered.”

"A dark future is awaiting everyone in Afghanistan, especially female judges."

"I lost my job and now I can’t even go outside or do anything freely because I fear these freed prisoners."

Said Nabila, a former judge, quoted in "Female Judges in Afghanistan, Now Jobless and in Hiding/They fear that they or their loved ones could be tracked down and killed because of their work delivering justice to women. 'We have lost everything — our jobs, our homes, the way we lived'" (NYT).

And there's this, from Susan Glazebrook, a supreme court justice of New Zealand, who is president of the International Association of Women Judges: 

"They are women who had the effrontery to sit in judgment on men. The women judges of Afghanistan are under threat for applying the law. They are under threat because they have made rulings in favor of women according to law in family violence, custody and divorce cases.... Women judging men is anathema to the Taliban.... These women believed in their country, believed in human rights and believed in the importance of the rule of law and their duty to uphold it... [And because of that, t]hey are at risk of losing their lives.”