Rehnquist Panel Launches Judicial Review

[CShine]

WASHINGTON - A panel named by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and led by another Supreme Court justice said Thursday it would spend about two years on a study that will answer congressional criticism that judges have been lax in policing themselves. The review will not include criticism of members of the Supreme Court itself. Rehnquist has directed the six-member committee to review only issues related to a 1980 federal law that allows punishments of federal judges who engage in "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." Some critics, however, complained that the panel's mandate is not broad enough.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told the panel's leader, Justice Stephen Breyer, in a letter late last month that there were "significant judicial ethics concerns" about the Supreme Court that should be dealt with at the same time. The panel, in the interest of protecting the public's confidence in the court, should consider whether Supreme Court justices should follow policies like those in the 1980 law, Leahy said. Breyer did not address Leahy's request in a statement issued after the group's first meeting at the Supreme Court on Thursday. He said that Rehnquist's assignment for the committee "is narrow, but important" and will likely take from 18 months to two years. They will look at how courts handled substantive complaints in recent years, he said. He said that confidence in courts partly "depends upon the public's understanding that effective complaint procedures and remedies are available in instances of misconduct or disability."

The naming of the panel, which will report back to Rehnquist, followed criticism from House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., that judges are not adequately disciplining their colleagues, and in fact may be covering up for them.

The focus of separate criticism of Supreme Court conduct and ethical responsibilities has been on Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia refused to step aside from hearing a case involving his good friend, Vice President Dick Cheney, after the two took a hunting trip to Louisiana in January. The vacation came three weeks after the court had agreed to hear Cheney's appeal in the case about the closed-door workings of an energy task force he chaired. The high court has not yet ruled in the case. Supreme Court justices decide for themselves whether they can impartially hear appeals, and their decisions are final.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=703&e=10&u=/ap/20040610/ap_on_go_su_co/judges_ethics

[liberalron]

1. 2 years,

to study 1 law???

[Alexander]

2. Not only that

They're being accused of not policing themselves. So what is Rehnquist's solution?

Judges should police themselves, that's what.

[liberalron]

3. Like your picture.

I imagine this is just window dressing, anyway.

[struggle4progress]

4. Congress needs to act.

[phoebe]

5. That these judges should be exempt from criticism is laughable

as is the request to "study" the issue. "Polishing the image" of the legal profession is old news. What happened to enforcement of the law?
The American Bar Association constantly updates its own standards on ethics and professionalism yet it routinely looks the other way on enforcement of these very standards.

Same tired old rhetoric followed by business-as-usual.

[AndyTiedye]

6. The Only Check or Balance on Crooked Supreme Court Justices...

...is impeachment, which is no check at all with the current Congress.