Posted by David Bernstein:
Bill Aims to Prevent Federal Judges from Reading the Volokh Conspiracy:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_16-2007_12_22.shtml#1198150138


   From now on, federal judges will only be allowed to read blogs
   sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center, a government organization.

   Well, not quite, but pending legislation does aim to prevent federal
   judges from attending seminars put on by George Mason's Law School's
   Law and Economics Center, among other educational centers.
   [1]According to John Fund, who provides a detailed critique, the bill
   "would flatly ban federal judges from attending anything other than a
   government-sponsored program."

   If so, why let federal judges read the Volokh Conspiracy (and I know
   several prominent federal appellate judges who do)? After all, though
   most of us conspirators teach at state schools, we have not been
   vetted by the FJC. Three of us even teach at George Mason, and receive
   Summer research funding from the LEC. And as for the red herring of
   "corporate funding" (the LEC, for example, gets less than 10% of its
   funding from corporations, and does not disclose the funders, so there
   will be no question of quid pro quo), have you noticed that the VC
   carries ads? Sure, the VC doesn't provide transportation or
   accommodations, but we do provide the best legal commentary on the web
   for free. Given the implicit value of our time, this is much more
   valuable than an off-season stay at a resort. And we don't even demand
   that judges spend many hours doing background reading, unlike the LEC!

   This whole non-issue has been stirred up by Doug Kendall's
   Soros-funded Community Rights Council. [2]Recall that Kendall filed an
   ethics complaint against Sixth Circuit Judge Danny Boggs for serving
   on the board of FREE, a Montana-based free market environmentalist
   group that, among other things, runs education seminars for federal
   judges. Chief Judge Loken rejected the complaint, and wrote,
   "Reasonable people, unlike the complainant, do not presume a lack of
   integrity and impartiality from a judge's association with legitimate
   judicial education, no matter how controversial." And later (alluding
   also to related allegations against D.C. Circuit Judge Doug Ginsburg):
   "there is no factual foundation to support an inference of wrongdoing
   by anyone ... Rather these allegations typify the character
   assassination that is all too common in our nation's capital.... By
   use of this tactic, it is the complainant who is undermining public
   confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, not the
   judges complained of."

References

   1. http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110011003
   2. http://volokh.com/posts/1119114138.shtml

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to