I think it is helpful to take a step back and consider the priorities of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
For decades, people on both sides of the aisle have raised legitimate complaints about forum shopping in patent and bankruptcy cases. It's not just judge shopping.there is an actual judge sale, a judge recommends litigants to take their case to court.this is genuine This issue may not make headlines, but it affects far more cases than the one brought by the Texas attorney general. And unlike constitutional and administrative law challenges, which are reviewed de novo and quickly blocked by higher courts, patent litigation and bankruptcy cases tend to be reviewed on a highly respectful basis and put on hold. there is.
However, the Judicial Conference did not adopt a policy to address this issue with bipartisan agreement. Instead, it adopted a policy explicitly designed to crack down on aisle-only behavior. These judges were certainly aware of the implications of their policies. But they went ahead anyway.
And I learned that this policy was considered completely uncontroversial. In the Judicial Council he has two lists. consent list and discussion list. Items on the former list are adopted by applause without debate. Items on the latter list will be discussed before voting. The policy regarding randomized assignment is consent list.Is that really the case? every Did members of the Judicial Council consider this issue so moot that there was no need to even discuss it?
becomes terrible.Was the policy adopted at the meeting? Required or option? On Tuesday, Mr Justice Sutton said: reporter It argued that the policy is mandatory and „overrides local standing orders.“ But by Friday, a memorandum had been released suggesting the policy was strictly voluntary. what happened? There are two possibilities for him.
First, the policy decided upon by the vote was voluntary, and Judge Sutton completely failed. Second, the policy that was voted on was mandatory, but after some backlash from me and others, we changed our policy and made it optional.
The first possibility is that it gives Judge Sutton a bad impression, but it may be unfair to make him a scapegoat. However, in the second possibility, whole A judicial meeting with a bad atmosphere. Instead of standing strong in support of policies adopted through praise, they cut and ran when negative press came in. As always, I'll take some credit here for shifting the Overton window to set the terms of the discussion. If everyone had followed what my friend Sam Bray wrote, the policy might never have changed. you're welcome.
In many ways, this episode shows that much of the judiciary is wrong. People who become judges care very deeply about what others think of them. In fact, this approach to careerism is the only way to navigate oneself through the political process to a lifetime appointment. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Anyone who actually wants to be a judge for life should be immediately disqualified from holding that office. The problem, of course, is that someone has to fill these positions, and it's going to be hard to hire someone who doesn't actually want the job. I sometimes support term limits for the sole purpose of getting rid of people who want power for life.
Will there be any oversight from Congress on this issue? Courts are usually immune from inquiries about their decisions, but their work as administrative bodies is viewed in a completely different light. At the very least, I would like to know how often and what kind of research was conducted. Nationwide or Statewide Relief by Division by a Single Judge. Indeed, such a report was circulated to the judiciary prior to this immaterial vote. Or did the committee just vote based on Schumer and Vladek's claims? I would also be interested to see if the policy approved on March 12th is: Required or option, and whether changes were made in response to public pressure. If the Judicial Council is to function as a body responsive to political pressure, it should be treated as such.