live_tv
Livestream Starting Soon
00
Hours
:
00
Minutes
:
00
Seconds
Up next in 10
Federalist Society 2008 National Convention
Mayflower Hotel, Washington, DC
November 21, 2008, 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Grand Ballroom
* Mr. H. Thomas Wells Jr., American Bar Association, and Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.
* Hon. William H., Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
* Moderator: Mr. M. Edward Whelan III, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Member: Jon Roland
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
policy center i'm pleased to welcome you to this dialogue on the topic of judicial independence
0:05
before we start let me remind you that lunch will follow immediately after this we're going to stop sharply at noon
0:11
and go straight to lunch without a break judicial independence seems to be one of
0:17
those concepts that virtually everyone favors but to which different people assign very different meanings
0:23
the very phrase judicial independence invites the question independence from what but that question
0:30
seems curiously neglected former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor has made
0:35
defense of judicial independence a project of her post-judicial career two years ago
0:40
in a wall street journal op-ed entitled the threat to judicial independence she declared that
0:47
the breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in american history in
0:55
immediate support of this dramatic proposition justice o'connor presented these assertions these are all close
1:01
the ubiquitous activist judges who legislate from the bench have become central villains on today's domestic
1:07
political landscape elected officials routinely scored cheap points by railing against the
1:13
elitist judges several jeremiahs are published every year warning of the dangers of
1:19
judicial supremacy and judicial tyranny and using judges as
1:24
punching bags presents a great threat to the independent judiciary now to be
1:30
sure justice o'connor assured her readers an independent judiciary does not mean that somehow can properly criticize
1:36
judicial decisions and that what matters is quote making sure that criticism does not cross over into intimidation
1:44
but her ability to distinguish between criticism and intimidation is highly suspect when she evidently finds
1:49
intimidating such phrases as activist judges legislate from the bench and
1:55
judicial supremacy in the interest of full disclosure i'll volunteer that in my best family's blog on national review
2:01
online and my other writings i regularly engage in vigorous criticism of unsound judicial rulings and of
2:07
judges who don't understand the proper limits of the judicial role so i won't pretend to be neutral on
2:12
justice o'connor's expansive conception of judicial independence and i'm sorry but not surprised that she
2:18
has applied to the topic of judicial independence the same level of analytical rigor that alas marked her judicial career
2:29
my role today is to moderate or perhaps to aggravate a discussion between our two
2:36
distinguished guests both of whom as it happens hailed in the state of alabama i'll introduce them very briefly judge
2:43
william h pryor jr has served with distinction on the u.s court of appeals for the 11th circuit
2:48
since 2004 from 1997 2004 judge pryor is attorney general of
2:54
the state of alabama among his publications is a 2007 virginia larvae article titled not so serious threats to
3:02
judicial independence h thomas wells jr to my right is serving
3:07
a one year term as president of the american bar association for the last decade or so the aba has had a standing committee
3:14
on judicial independence which among other things as it puts it provides resources to enable lawyers and
3:19
the public to respond in a timely fashion to unfair and unjust criticism of judges mr wells is a partner and
3:26
founding member of the law firm of maynard cooper and gale in birmingham alabama
3:32
does the concept of judicial independence derive from and reflect separation of powers principles and to
3:38
the real threats to judicial independence come from governmental actors including judges who fail to respect
3:44
these principles or as justice o'connor evidently believes does judicial independence
3:49
require that citizens be especially delicate and deferential in expressing their criticisms of judges and judicial
3:56
rulings is there some middle ground position our lawyers who embrace expansive notions of judicial
4:02
independence like justice o'connor's really just trying to ingratiate themselves with judges
4:08
in order to advance their own professional ambitions or worse to provide camouflage for activist judges to
4:14
advance the ideological agendas the lawyers favor should we instead be
4:20
concerned about the threats that judicial supremacy poses to our system of representative government
4:25
i hope that today's discussion will shed light of what judicial independence properly understood is and on what are
4:31
and are not genuine threats to judicial independence judge pryor
4:43
good morning thank you ed for that introduction i think it's fitting that there are
4:49
two speakers for this dialogue from who hail from the great state of alabama
4:54
after all it is november it's the month of
5:00
the great end of college football season and uh the mighty crimson tide all is
5:07
right in the world is ranked number one and undefeated
5:13
talk of judicial independence as um as i mentioned all the rage
5:20
in recent years leaders of the bench and bar have derided what they described as
5:25
unprecedented assaults on the independence of the judiciary the most prominent leader of this course
5:32
has been as i've mentioned a distinguished american and public servant
5:37
retired associate justice sandra day o'connor at a meeting of the american law
5:43
institute justice o'connor thanked the institute for its defense of judicial independence
5:49
which she described as under the most serious attack in her lifetime and as he read a moment
5:55
ago in her op-ed in the wall street journal justice o'connor stated that the intensity of rage currently being
6:02
leveled at the judiciary is perhaps unbashed in american history but she has not been
6:07
alone michael greco who was the president recently of the american bar association
6:14
addressed the house of delegates and said ironically while american lawyers in the american bar association are
6:20
helping to build independent judicial systems in emerging democracies around the world
6:25
our own courts are under unprecedented attack michael traynor in a letter to the membership of the
6:31
american law institute of which he served as president wrote judicial independence is especially important today because
6:38
the judiciary and the rule of law are under relentless and severe attacks
6:43
from various supporters now chief justice roberts even got into the
6:49
act a couple of years ago as he urged congress to provide judges an increase in salaries and describe the
6:56
current level of pay as a threat to judicial independence
7:01
now i respectfully disagree with the conventional wisdom of
7:06
prevention board i said that the independence of the judiciary today is as secure as ever the current criticisms of
7:14
the judiciary are relatively mild and on balance a benefit to the judiciary
7:19
i will say i'm sympathetic to a call for an increase in pay
7:26
my spouse is a certified public accountant and frequently reminds me of the opportunity cost of public
7:32
service but to say that our current level of pay is a threat to our independence i think
7:39
is an exaggeration as a judge whose nomination confirmation generated controversy
7:47
uh even a filibuster there was even litigation about my earlier recess appointment i believe that the
7:53
appointment process on balance is beneficial to the judiciary i do not mean to
7:59
suggest that judicial independence is unimportant it is indispensable to the rule of law
8:05
thomas paine explained in common sense in absolute governance the king islam
8:10
and in america the law is king judicial independence is now has always been
8:15
the primary reason that in america the law is king but if we look at a brief review of the
8:21
history of our judiciary particularly in the supreme court of the united states would suggest that there is a tested
8:27
method for defending our independence and that is to respect the limits of our authority
8:34
to that end i want to talk briefly about three things first i want to talk about the original understanding
8:39
of judicial independence second i want to address three moments in american history when
8:44
the independence of the judiciary was challenged and the lesson to be learned from that history and then i want to explain briefly why i think the
8:50
contemporary challenges to the judiciary were not serious threats to independence
8:56
americans recognized the need for judicial independence from the beginning of our nation two of the grievances
9:02
against king george listed in the declaration of independence involved the absence
9:07
of judicial independence in colonial america the declaration charged that the king had instructed the
9:12
administration justice by refusing his assent to laws for establishing the judiciary powers
9:18
and it made judges dependent on his will alone both for the tenure of their offices and
9:23
the amount and payment of their salaries and the framers widely agreed that we needed an independent judiciary at the
9:30
constitutional convention they first vested the entire judicial power
9:35
in a federal judiciary second they provided the judges would have like
9:40
tenure or as the constitution puts it obtained very good behavior and they provided that their compensation of
9:47
judges shall not be administering their continuation in office the framers believed in judicial independence but
9:53
not in the literal sense of the word independent they expected the judiciary to be accountable
9:59
to the people judges would be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate
10:04
judges would be subject to impeachment judges would be bound by voter affirmation to support the constitution
10:10
of the house of the united states judicial independence as originally understood and is understood today
10:16
refers to two kinds of independence one strong the other weak the first is decisional independence
10:22
that is the ability of an individual judge to decide each case fairly and impartially based on the facts involved
10:28
the second is institutional independence that is the ability of the judiciary is a separate branch
10:34
to protect its institutional integrity the structure of the constitution
10:39
provides strong protections for the decisional independence of the judiciary but wheat protections
10:45
for its institutional independence we have what scholars have described as independent judges and independent
10:52
judiciary this design was explained during the ratification ratification debates by the
10:58
most eloquent defender of judicial independence the original wall street lawyer alexander hamilton and federalist 88
11:06
78 he explicated the tie between strong decisional independence and judicial
11:12
review he described life tenure as the foremost guarantee of decisional independence and protection from cuts
11:18
and pay as a close second when the another federalist charge that the judiciary would be too
11:23
independent hamilton responded the judiciary would be institutionally weak the least
11:28
dangerous branch because it has no influence over the either the sword or the purse
11:34
no direction mother and the strength of the wealth of society but what about federalist 81
11:42
where hamilton responded about the ultimate check of judicial abuse
11:47
he also wrote that americans could rest assured that the judiciary would not
11:53
abuse its power because congress retained the check of impeachment
11:58
now after this auspicious beginning there have been at least three periods of serious challenges to the independence of the
12:04
judiciary to the 19th century one in the 20th the first came during the advent of the
12:09
administration of thomas jefferson the second came during reconstruction the third came during the new deal each period of
12:15
challenge was marked with restraint by the judiciary followed by increased respect for its independence
12:22
when thomas jefferson and his political party rested control of both the presidency and congress the
12:27
losing federalists during their lame dutch session passed the judiciary act of 1801 which created
12:33
new judgeships in the final weeks of the administration president adams nominated at the senate
12:39
confirmed federalists to fill the new offices and in the final hours adams signed the commissions for the new
12:44
officers the so-called midnight officers midnight judges some of the commissions that including that
12:51
of william marbury were not delivered before adam's turn expired and the new
12:56
president refused to honor the appointments when the jeffersonian republic republicans came to power they proceeded
13:02
to undo the work of the police they repealed the judiciary act abolish the new judgeships canceled the june and
13:08
december terms of the supreme court and as every law student learns william marbury then sued
13:14
jefferson secretary of state james madison by filing a petition for rid of man famous in the supreme court
13:20
most scholars believe that the jefferson administration would not have obeyed in order to deliver them that commission the
13:27
supreme court responded to this controversy with its most celebrated decision in american history
13:34
marguerite versus madison and that decision was a model of restraint
13:39
that would help set the stage for the judiciary to weather a serious challenge from the jeffersonians
13:45
rather than order the delivery of the commission the court dismissed it before reaching its decision the court
13:52
explained that it would not review any political judgment of of the executive the court moved that the purported grant
13:57
of original jurisdiction for the court to issue the written was unconstitutional because article 3 defined and limited
14:05
the original jurisdiction of the supreme court the court acted with restraint now long afterwards of
14:12
course there was an attempt by the jefferson republicans uh that it was actually
14:17
the fouls voted to impeach justice championship samuel chase but he was acquitted by the
14:23
senate and i don't want to say that there's a cause of effect but i would propose that
14:29
perhaps if the court had reacted differently in marguerite versus medicine and worse in branch relations perhaps
14:36
the chase trial would not have turned out so well the second challenge came of course during reconstruction
14:42
reconstruction congress did not look kindly on the federal judiciary because of the dred scott decision particularly
14:48
they did not look kindly on the supreme court and um and we all know about the case of exporting
14:54
mccarter when a newspaper editor from vicksburg mississippi was jailed awaiting trial by a military tribunal on
15:00
charges of inciting insurrection and impeding reconstruction he filed a petition for him abuse corpus
15:06
that eventually found its way to the supreme court everyone expected the supreme court to declare reconstruction acts
15:12
unconstitutional but the court instead awaited the judgment of congress to repeal its appellate jurisdiction
15:19
and dismiss the case in the years following congress responded by enlarging the
15:26
jurisdiction of the federal courts endings or reducing circuit writing responsibilities
15:32
of supreme court justices the restraint of the court was reciprocated with and i'm not saying
15:41
this was cause and effect but had the court acted without restraint perhaps
15:46
the federal judiciary would not have done as well as it did in the in the later years and of course we all know from the new deal period
15:53
about president roosevelt's court packing proposal and we know
15:59
too that near that time the supreme court changed its
16:05
perspective of economic and social legislation coming from congress
16:12
justice roberts vote which was called the switch in time that saved kind which he had agreed to do in conference
16:20
before roosevelt ever unveiled his court packing legislation
16:25
ultimately defused a controversy and the independence of the federal
16:30
judiciary remains secure now i think one lesson from this history is
16:36
that um the judiciary uh serves as its best defender of its independence
16:41
by acting with restraint but if you look at these moments in history and you contrast them with what are regarded as
16:49
the contemporary threats to judicial independence whether it's public criticisms of the judiciary
16:56
or legislation to encourage initial power or the politics of appointment
17:02
particularly and particularly the confirmation process i think they all prepare a comparison
17:09
criticisms of the judiciary read dissenting opinions of supreme court justices
17:16
they're far harsher than virtually anything that is said in the political arena
17:21
we have a few law professors here my gosh if we um if we end criticism of the judiciary
17:27
what are all these law professors going to do they already have too much free time by
17:33
boy my hearty and and look judges and all professors need each other how else are we to expect anyone to read
17:41
what each other writes
17:46
what about uh legislation to curb the tradition we may hear from my um my friend from birmingham uh that
17:53
there was this terrible proposal in south dakota that sponsored by a group called jail for
17:59
judges what happened to that proposal it was defeated by 89.21
18:04
of the voters of south dakota they got nowhere it looks like judicial independence is
18:10
still safe in south dakota and then there's the confirmation process yes it's gotten
18:16
heated it's gotten political there's no question about that but i've had two different lives i've
18:23
had a political life before i had the privilege of service in
18:28
my current judicial life trust me if given the choice between having to
18:34
endure what senators and the president have to endure speaking on the stone shaking the hands
18:41
riding the rubber chicken circuit filming the advertisements raising the funds
18:47
i'll take answering the questions and the confirmation process every single day
18:55
there's a lot that we should expect for those who are going to serve the public there's a lot at stake but at
19:01
the end of the day i would say that if you want to look for who should be
19:06
the best guardians of judicial independence look in the mirror it is not unfair for
19:12
judges to ask sometimes whether some criticisms of our work are unfair ultimately
19:19
our independence depends on the persuasiveness of our of our own work and our own
19:26
opinions so we are the best and first guardians of judicial independence thank you
19:46
first let me uh begin with two very clear areas that my friend bill
19:53
pryor and i agree on number one it's always good to have a conversation
19:58
with someone else who doesn't have an
20:04
accident and second things are right in the world when the crimson tide is
20:12
number one in november in my year leading up to
20:20
becoming president of the american bar association a post i assumed in august of
20:26
uh just a few months ago i spent a good bit of time traveling and talking
20:32
to barb associations bar leaders judges and others across the country
20:38
indeed i think i'm correct that i've been on the road so far this calendar year approximately
20:44
200 days i can't imagine what the presidential candidates
20:50
can think about their travel schedule given the wear and tear it is given on my body but in that
20:57
i was hearing from different places from different bar associations from
21:03
different lawyers and from different judges what it first seemed to me to be
21:09
sort of dissonant comments until i had a chance to go back and reflect on what
21:15
they were saying and as i had a chance to reflect it all sort of coalesced in my mind that
21:22
what they were really talking about in their particular location in their particular jurisdiction
21:29
in their particular court were in one way or another threats
21:36
to judicial independence let me enumerate what i see
21:43
as some of the threats to judicial independence i am not going to limit my remarks to
21:50
the federal system obviously because i've been talking to state bar associations local bar
21:56
associations state court judges as well as federal court judges so i'm going to talk in a broader sense
22:04
than simply the federal system as i see it first and foremost as a threat to judicial
22:12
independence is the escalating politicization of the selection process
22:18
particularly but not exclusively in state high courts
22:24
i think unfortunately we are now seeing the predicted bad effects
22:31
in state judicial races of the supreme court's decision in republican party minnesota versus
22:37
white uh i will point you to two examples
22:43
one uh there is now a pending judicial disciplinary proceeding in
22:48
wisconsin entitled enrage judicial disciplinary proceedings versus honorable michael
22:54
gatewood mr gableman was running to unseat a sitting justice of the
23:00
wisconsin supreme court and in doing so ran what is reported to
23:06
be a patently false ad that while as a public defender
23:11
the sitting justice had gotten an accused off on a quote loophole or technicality
23:20
allowing this person to go out go off and commit more crimes mr gableman as you can tell by the uh
23:27
style since he is now the honorable michael gaiglin despite the fact that he ran a paperwork according to the
23:34
payment of false ad is now the subject of judicial disciplinary proceedings to which he is responding guess what
23:41
republican party in minnesota versus white i have a first amendment right to say and do almost anything
23:49
in a judicial election let me give you a second example this is
23:54
from my own home state of alabama we have a rather nasty race
24:02
for the open seat of justice harold c who was on our panel yesterday where we
24:09
had two candidates who between the two of them spent 3.8 million dollars
24:14
i'm glad justice c realizes now his seat was worth so much
24:20
but in addition to the 3.8 million dollars that the candidates spent there was an interest group in virginia
24:28
that was running what are what are called push polls they spent over a million dollars in
24:34
advertising but in addition they were doing these push polls and in doing the push polls they were
24:41
making false statements about supposed rankings of the candidates by the alabama state
24:48
bar these were patently false to the point that the president of the alabama state
24:54
mark white has referred the matter to the state attorney general for investigation of these false states
25:02
i submit to you that the costly and unseemly elections that we are seeing
25:09
causes a perception at least in the public of influence of
25:16
contributions on decisions and i see that
25:21
as a direct threat to the decisional independence of our judiciary
25:29
we've also talked a bit about the caperton versus massey cole company case
25:35
that was i believe discussed a bit yesterday for those of you who aren't here this is a case where the supreme court
25:41
just granted the search ferrari in a situation where a coal company sued
25:46
the president of another coal company in west virginia i believe as i recall it was a
25:53
fortunate appearance of business relations case and received a multi-billion dollar verdict
25:58
in the interim the judgment debtor donated three million dollars to the
26:05
campaign of a lawyer who was running for the west virginia supreme court
26:10
who got elected who then heard the case and decided not to recuse himself and
26:16
cast the deciding vote the one vote majority to reverse
26:22
the judgment against the multi-million dollar judgment against
26:27
the judgment debtor i submit to you again this is a situation and
26:33
i'm familiar with the facts of this case because the american bar association in part of the request of ted olson
26:39
who's representing the appellate in that case following weakness brief that the petition for certiorari stage
26:45
something that we rarely do but we perceive this to be enough of a judicial
26:51
independence issue and the request actually came up through our standing video on judicial
26:57
independence then we decided to file the petition stage now that the petition has been
27:02
granted we will of course be filing at the merit stage
27:08
is the sort of common sense that this perception that contributions
27:15
might influence decisions borne out when you actually poll people i suggest
27:22
to you that it does the polls in the past several years have shown that while
27:27
78 of the people believe that courts should be free of political and public
27:33
pressure still 72 percent of the people
27:40
polled are concerned that money contributions compromise judicial
27:47
impartiality 76 believes that the money
27:54
contributed in judicial elections influences decisions in judicial elections
28:01
and a surprising over half of those responding believed that
28:08
elected courts were quote controlled by special interests that my friends is a threat to the
28:16
decisional independence of those courts as my friend bill pryor said the courts
28:24
don't control either the person the sword and some public perception of the courts
28:31
is an important part of judicial independence now obviously in judicial selection
28:41
whatever method you choose whether it be the appointment process in the federal and some state systems or
28:47
the elective process in that area is probably where the
28:53
tension between judicial independence and judicial accountability is probably
29:01
the greatest and that i submit to you is why we spend so much time
29:06
and all of us have spent a good bit of time at this meeting talking about judicial
29:12
selection and judicial terms politics will never be removed
29:20
from judicial selection that's a pipe dream we can't do it there are however
29:27
ways that we can control it i don't know how many of you are are
29:33
golfers i happen to be one but i sort of like in the process to what i've said
29:40
about my sandwich lurking inside every sandwich
29:46
is a two iron trying to get out
29:51
i think it's the same way with judicial selection politics are inherent in the process
30:00
there is nothing wrong with that however like a boiling pot
30:08
that you have a lid on at some point the lid blows off and the question becomes can you simply
30:16
turn down the temperature enough that you don't blow the lid off i submit that we are in a situation now
30:24
particularly in state court elected politics where the lid has blown off
30:32
or that two iron trying to get out of my sand wedge has reappeared
30:38
now i mentioned that this is not necessarily i think limited to the state selection
30:44
system although clearly less of a threat
30:50
the federal selection and confirmation process in my view has still become recently
30:56
overly politicized at times ranker and sometimes
31:04
bitter and partisan confirmation battles have taken place uh
31:11
interestingly at the presentation yesterday professor bill kelly mentioned one way that he had seen from
31:18
his standpoint of working in the white house that perhaps there might be a better
31:24
mousetrap it's interesting because the model that he cited was the commission model used by the two
31:31
democratic senators in california to recommend republican nominees to the bush white house indeed that is
31:39
exactly the model that the american bar association proposes
31:44
and adopted at our meeting in new york in august that the senators put together
31:51
bipartisan citizens commissions to recommend not to dictate what to recommend names
31:59
to the senators who could then recommend names to the white house not trying to take
32:04
away either nomination or confirmation obviously you can't do that those are constitutional
32:11
but in the eight states that that process is being used in quite frankly the lid has generally been
32:19
kept on that boiling pot of politics let me mention to you some other threats
32:27
that i have seen in traveling across the country
32:32
judge pryor mentioned the jail for judges in south dakota i am going to mention that this was a
32:39
threat to judicial independence directly it would have removed judicial immunity
32:45
which i believe we all can agree is an inherent part of judicial independence the judges are
32:51
immune from civil liability or criminal liability for their decisional
32:57
actions the jail for judges initiative when first hold was polling
33:05
well in excess of 70 yes it was only by a remarkable
33:10
combination of the organized bar the
33:16
south dakota bar association the business community that that ballot initiative was
33:24
ultimately defeated that however is not the only valid initiative that has been
33:29
in play in the past few years there have been one valid initiative and one attempt to
33:35
put a ballot initiative on the ballot in colorado this was another
33:40
out-of-state funded ballot initiative that would have so severely term-limited colorado judges that they could never
33:49
invest in the state retirement system it was narrowly defeated the first time
33:55
it came up and then last year i was meeting with the colorado bar and they were quite afraid that it was going to come
34:02
up again in fact the petitions were being circulated luckily that did not get sufficient
34:10
names on the petitions to make it to the ballot but it was a concern of the colorado bar and the judges in
34:17
colorado that it would be a threat to judicial independence
34:23
i'm going to mention just just a couple of others that i've seen and i've heard from our
34:29
associations one of course is unjust criticism
34:34
i'm not talking about just any criticism i'm talking about unjust criticism
34:40
of judges and judicial opinions there is a line there all of us can probably draw it at some
34:47
point but i think there are some points along that continuum of which we can all agree
34:52
when someone in congress says i disagree with the decision
34:58
of the 11th circuit of judge pryor i think we ought to impeach the entire panel because of that decision that's a threat
35:05
to judicial independence we shouldn't be impeaching judges simply because a person in congress decides they don't
35:12
like the opinion uh fortunately for us this year in the
35:17
presidential elections the candidates did not make the courts of political football and i commend both
35:23
campaigns for doing that at the american bar association we were
35:28
prepared in case that happened we believe preparation is better than reaction we were also prepared
35:35
if there were election contests fortunately we also didn't have to deal with that eventuality
35:42
there are others that have been mentioned jurisdiction stripping
35:47
funding indeed at the state court level with probably only two exceptions
35:55
lack of funding is a threat to judicial independence it is so much so that the american bar
36:00
association is teaming with the national center for state courts to have a fair and independent
36:06
court summit in may one of the centerpieces of which will be to have delegations led by the chief
36:12
justice of we hope at least 25 states i think we've got 18 committed so far
36:19
a representative of the executive branch and a representative of the legislature to talk about the importance of adequate
36:26
funding for the third branch of government here we're clearly talking about not
36:31
decisional independence but institutional independence of the judiciary
36:39
and quite frankly i couldn't talk about funding without talking about salaries
36:45
particularly at the federal level although quite frankly there are several state courts as i'm sure you know that
36:51
linked the state court salaries to the federal salaries there are certain percentage of the federal assets
36:58
as judge pryor indicated chief justice roberts has called this a threat to judicial independence and
37:04
indeed the situation as we stand today is unless congress acts in this lame duck session
37:14
congress will get a cost of living adjustment but federal judges will not that
37:22
i submit is unconscionable and i also submit that if one
37:29
of the important parts of judicial independence particularly at the federal level is no diminution in pay
37:36
it's a little hard to see how the cost of living adjustments and pay
37:41
increases that have basically only brought them up to the 1995
37:47
level is not a decrease in their pay because of that
37:55
the american bar association has been working with many groups to lobby capitol hill for a
38:02
much needed pay increase in congress we obviously got very close this year
38:08
didn't quite get the ball across the goal line hopefully however alabama will in the
38:14
iron mode next weekend but those are some of the threats that i
38:19
see at both the state and the federal level to judicial independence thank you
38:33
uh judge pryor do you have any comments in response well um there was a lot there
38:42
i i have several disagreements uh i don't think that um
38:49
i think first of all it is important for us to remember what we're we're talking about when we
38:56
say judicial independence not everything that affects the quality
39:01
or the best work of the judiciary
#Law & Government
#Government
#Courts & Judiciary
#Legal