A Toast for the New Year to Two DC Circuit Appeals Court Judges
Here’s something to toast as the New Year rolls in: Pretense has consequences.
This news should greatly please anyone who is irritated by presumptions of privilege asserted by those who either don’t deserve it or no longer have it. But readers who recall Ohio’s Second District GOP primary battles of 2005 and 2006 will especially appreciate the deliciousness of this Saturday Wall Street Journal editorial gem (bolds are mine; requires subscription), and the situation that gave rise to it:
The Former Magnificent Seven
As the clock moved toward midnight in the judicial year yesterday, two federal appeals court judges (from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — Ed.) issued an exquisite, brief ruling that should have members of the legal fraternity clucking from Manhattan to San Francisco.
Judges David Sentelle and Ray Randolph ruled that the amicus briefs filed by seven former federal judges on behalf of dozens of Guantanamo detainees in their lawsuits against the U.S. government were impermissible. Why? Because the erstwhile judicial seven had appended the title “judge” before their names in the filings and thereby stood, or sat, in violation of Advisory Opinion No. 72 of the Committee on Codes of Conduct, which holds that a former judge should forbear using the title “judge” in the courts.
….. Indeed, a footnote to Friday’s ruling quotes Advisory Opinion No. 72, warning against the special aura such amici may emit: “A litigant whose lawyer is called ‘Mr.’ and whose adversary’s lawyer is called ‘Judge,’ may reasonably lose a degree of confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
To say the least. We see little reason why that endless roster of former judges, ambassadors, generals and the like shouldn’t approach the bench as do the rest of us. These seven should feel free to refile their opinions, as Mr., Ms., or whatever.
Second District voters can logically add “former congressmen” to the list in the Journal’s last paragraph, and savor the moment. The US District Court should call this its “Bob McEwen Ruling.”
Seems like I’m not the only person annoyed by people who try to hold on to titles they’re not entitled to claim, whether they’re “approaching the bench,” or “approaching the voters” (McEwen in 2005, McEwen in 2006). Plus, in the case of elections, we’re not talking about a “Code of Conduct,” or common courtesy, we’re talking about the law [scroll down to 3517.21(b)(1)].
So, let’s raise our glasses to Sentelle and Randolph. I know it’s early, but Bottoms Up. :–>
__________________________
UPDATE: This has generated quite a bit of the “clucking” the Journal anticipated over at Althouse.
