Only 9?
I was trying to be kind.
I hear Republicans in the Senate were really impressed with Garland’s apolitical nature. All in the timing I guess. Meanwhile, Cornyn has apparently turned down this gig as well on grounds that there isn’t much job security. That’s what this government is potentially left: progressively incompetent Trump lackeys.
Even Ray Kelly and Trey Gowdy aren’t interested. Obligatory cite.
A nomination made by a President with less than a year left in office should not be voted upon at all. That’s the rule now, right?
That’s an interesting concept, quite apart from Trump or Garland. I’ve never understood why these judges are willing to give up life tenure to take term-limited positions.
I would think that if you could keep your seat on the bench, someone would have done it already.
(I guess you’ve got Warren and Jackson, but I’m thinking people like Louis Freeh or Ken Starr).
He’s the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit. Who is going to stop him from taking a multi-year leave of absence then returning? No one, I don’t think. The Senate would have to impeach him. But there’s lots of precedent for Article III judges holding executive offices during part of their tenure, so I don’t think they’re going to get ten Democrats to agree to impeachment.
That said, it’s obviously not going to happen. Garland doesn’t want it. And, as I said above, Trump would never offer it.
Can the chief judge approve his own requests or is there some alternative procedure? I remember that Lee Sarokin retired when the 3rd Circuit wouldn’t allow him to move his chambers to San Diego (I think). So there must be some procedure, but I have no idea.
More importantly, is there really a lot of precedent? I read one of the articles about it and most (all?) of the examples were judges who stayed on in their executive capacity for weeks after their appointment as judges. Warren and Jackson are (to me) different, perhaps because I don’t really consider them as holding “executive offices.” Has any judge taken a leave of absence from the bench to serve in a traditional position in the executive branch? I’m not really interested in this as a political question regarding the current senate or merrick garland. (I guess it’s a tangent). I’m wondering why, if there’s so much precedent for it, anyone would give up life tenure for a short-term political job if they didn’t have to.
I was thinking less of approving the request (as I’m not sure there’s any obligation to seek approval) and more of who might have the power to do anything about it. I don’t know who is given administrative authority to deal with the Chief. I guess ultimately the Supreme Court, right? But they cannot remove him from office. They could just pull him off cases, right?
I think I know the precedent about about as well as you (or worse). I had just seen a list of names of people who served in both roles. They may well be subject to the distinction you make above.
But I guess wouldn’t infer too much from the fact of people leaving their tenured posts permanently. The move would definitely raise eyebrows. So you’d probably only do it in extraordinary circumstances that seem justified, which I think is true here but maybe not with others. Also, some minority of federal judges don’t really like their jobs that much. Consider the percentage who leave (or retire early instead of continuing in senior status) even though they’re in good health.
I don’t understand why this ever became a thing. “Hey, he was in the news and was once vaguely associated with law enforcement!” seems to be the sum total of the reasons to nominate him.
To be fair, there’s no need for him to resign. He’s playing more golf already than everyone but PGA Tour pros.
Garland is an entirely inappropriate candidate. Because he was so shabbily treated by the Republican controlled Congress he will be perceived as having a political axe to grind. Given that the next FBI director will most likely be responsible for investigating a number of matters related to the Trump presidency, it is important that the director not be easily labeled as partisan.
Garland’s name has been popping up lately for the job, I believe the desire to taint the incoming director with a partisan label is what is behind this idea. It is an attempt to poison the well.
Wonder what Michael “heckuva job” Brown is doing these days.
You got me curious, so I looked it up. He’s hosting a radio show. My favorite part:
For similar reasons, I’ve considered setting fire to a bunch of houses and then getting a job as a firefighter, using my insight into arson.
I know you say that ironically, but there is a small but significant number of firefighters who get into the job because (PDF) they are arsonists - though hard data is not really available.
Weird and fascinating. And if they insisted around the office that their experience burning things down is what qualified them to set fire-fighting policy, it’s be just like Brownie.
I know the PDF you linked to is 57 pages, but if you could provide a page number to support the assertion that there was a causal relationship between someone being an arsonist and then becoming a firefighter I’d appreciate it. While there was much that was interesting in that PDF, my reading says it’s concerned with people who become firefighters and THEN go on to become arsonists, rather than the reverse.
Enjoy,
Steven
The John Orr casewas a notorious example.