Any comments, please address them to dadofprince@gmail.com--many thanks!
When a former student gets to be a judge, well, it's a proud moment. Here's someone dedicated to the greatest kind of public service--the maintenance of extending and interpreting the meaning of laws so that society can continue to function.
When you think about it, you realize that there are so few of them holding up that vital branch of our government. They operate mostly in obscurity. If they garner attention, it's usually for a negative reason. We elect many of them, especially in small locations, though most elections are unchallenged. That idea has its proponents and opponents; some say all judges should be appointed so as to keep politics from directly affecting their decisions.
Gwen Connolly, who was in a freshman history class I taught some time ago, saw herself in both positions lately, in a way. Gwen, a top-notch student at Cedarburg High, got elected to be the judge in Milwaukee County Circuit 44, and repeated as an incumbent. When a state appellate position opened up, she decided to run for it. But first, Governor Tony Evers could, and did, appoint a judge to temporarily fill the spot.
Gwen applied. But she didn't get it. Evers gave it to Pedro Colon, who used to be a fairly big name in the state assembly back in the Oughts. That smoothed the way for Colon to campaign to win eventual election to that position, pretty much a one party Democratic appellate district. Gwen, too, is a Democrat. She also would probably have won going away.
Back to the judicial salt mines she went. As part of a novel I'm writing, I asked her to lunch to talk about what judges do, what they say in some situations, and why. We never really got there. Coming in second for an appointment she had counted on pretty much took up the conversation. She was brave about it. I tried to reassure her that how she accepted the disappointment would be important in her future ambitions.
Nonetheless, I was grateful for her time. As a gentleman might do, I got out my card and tried to pay for lunch. Except that wasn't going to happen. She insisted we go Dutch.
It felt odd. I wasn't trying to do anything more than get some generic information from her, something I might do with any other local judge I happened to speak with. I doubt that anyone would have made the slightest stink about it. After all, here I was, a former teacher of hers. That relationship never goes away, and she was certainly respectful of it.
No matter. She avoids the least possible implication of impropriety. After all, I'm a resident of Milwaukee County. I don't intend to be in her courtroom for any functional reason (though I could visit there on my own; courts are open to the public), but the slightest sliver of a chance about that could raise questions in someone reporter's mind at some point for some reason, however distant. She didn't want favoritism implied in any way.
She appreciated my gesture, but operating clean and completely upfront is how she rolls. "I draw a bright line," she told me.
We come now to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who clearly haven't. It's been reported multiple times that, at least since 2004, Thomas has gained favors from very rich friends whose interests have most certainly been represented in cases appearing before the Supreme Court. He has not reported them. He has not recused himself from any cases. Neither has Alito.
Thomas has not commented upon these findings, either. Neither has Alito.
I wonder what they would say if someone confronted them with the obvious question. I suppose they would not only deny being affected in their decisions in any way, but might even take offense at any implications that they had. Based on their general manners as reflected in public statements they've made, I expect nothing less.
But they both know, as do we all, that the appearance of impropriety is, in itself, impropriety. To avoid or neglect due diligence about keeping one's nose clean about accepting favors tells everyone things that are redoubtable and even unacceptable about the character that's necessary to reflect integrity upon themselves, their decisions and the Court on which they serve. Like it or not, trying to dodge it or not, they are highly noticeable.
Contrast this with a very unnoticeable judge, Gwen Connolly, who won't even accept lunch at a relatively inexpensive restaurant from her former teacher. She has a conscience about these things. She understands that people have long memories. Can she be bought off with 17 or 18 dollars? We'll never know because she refuses to accept even that small of a favor. She's drawn a bright line and she has no inclination to cross it.
Thomas and Alito, though, weren't elected. They were chosen by presidents Bush 41 and 43, respectively, approved by the U.S. Senate and chosen for life. At the time of his choosing, Thomas was questioned about his controversial background, but escaped when he evoked memories of lynch mobs. Once he could glide under the radar, people turned the other way and assumed he would step up when the time was right. He obviously hasn't. Neither has Alito.
Both have reportedly been given fishing trips and other excursions by people who can easily afford them. It's absurd to believe that they were gifted just because they were friends. If you doubt this, let me ask you: Have you been gifted many trips, or indeed any trips, just because you were someone's friend? If you happened to be so incredibly lucky to have that happen, can you definitively and without a doubt say there were no strings attached, even implicitly? Isn't gifting itself a comment that doesn't need explicit commentary?
More to the point: If Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito had not been on the U.S. Supreme Court, would they have been treated as well as they have been, as well as they have allowed themselves to be? If they had remained just regular lawyers, would they have connected with the mega-rich the way they have? Even if they would have managed the same kinds of handouts, they wouldn't be the country's most momentous decision-makers. Our whole society's path wouldn't be riding on what they said and wrote.
In a sense, then, we don't really need to plumb much farther into who did what for whom. Even if no court cases could have directly conflicted with these justices' interests, the appearance of impropriety is, in itself, impropriety, if the justices don't recuse themselves.
Clarence Thomas said he asked people about conflicts of interest. But those people didn't include anyone from the Senate committee assigned to monitor potential issues like this, the Senate Judiciary Commiittee. Why would that be: Because he already knew the answer, one he wouldn't like?
Does clearing ethics issues with people who most likely wouldn't tell him the stone truth--they are, of course, his friends--make it all right? Doesn't that sound like a kid who plays one parent off against the other, seeking grounds for permission he knows are shaky? Isn't the fact that Thomas felt he had to ask someone is an effort not to clarify, but to get away with gifting that sure looks like grifting? And he hasn't been reporting things for nineteen years.
Nobody's probing with a microscope here. It's very obvious. It's another guardrail that's gone down. We used to assume that naturally, all Supreme Court justices would police themselves ethically. Again, we ignore history. Other justices have lost their balance along that fence, too. All those wrongs don't make Thomas right, though.
Isn't it pathetic that we have to ask these questions of appointees to the highest court in the land? Are they exhibiting the "good behavior" that the Constitution demands, subject to (supposedly) impeachment and removal? They aren't subject to electoral review, either. Only death stops them. It would take a Constitutional amendment to limit their terms to a finite number of years. Good luck with that.
In the meantime, Gwen Connolly's ethics are solid as steel. She has nothing to hide. The people of the 44th judicial district should be secure in the knowledge that there will be nothing in the back of her mind whenever she has to tell any lawyer, or any defendant, anything. Nothing will be tainted or compromised. The exquisite irony of making unfettered rulings for one small judicial district in Milwaukee (hopefully, for all of them), instead of the highest federal court, cannot be lost. Ethics, like all politics apparently, remain local.
I hope Gwen and I have lunch again. I hope it will be when she manages to move up the ladder, as someone like her so richly deserves. We'll go Dutch. She'll insist.
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment