Impeach this judge!
What to do about bad federal judges? Unlike the vast majority of state court judges, they've got lifetime tenure. Unlike the vast majority of state court judges, there are no effective checks on their power. Congress has used its impeachment power in the last century only to punish corruption. Unless the Constitution is amended to allow for some other solution, Congress should make more extensive use impeachment powers where judges have grossly abused their power. Second in a series.
The case: United States v. Williams
The judge: Vanessa Gilmore, southern district of Texas
The problem: Failure to follow instructions, among other things
Truck driver Tyrone Williams is on trial for his life in a federal district court in Houston. He's accused of mass murder: walking away from a locked trailer full of illegal immigrants he was transporting, leaving them to bake in south Texas. Nineteen people died.
Williams worked for a smuggling ring. The ringleader pleaded guilty, and a dozen others have been charged. Williams, however, is the only defendant for whom the government seeks the death penalty.
Williams is African-American. Judge Vanessa Gilmore also is African-American. As you can see from this report of a speech she gave at her alma mater, the University of Houston, she takes her African-Americanism seriously. And she wants to know why Williams alone has been charged with a capital crime.
Toward that end, she has (according to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals here and here) threatened prosecutors with inappropriate discovery demands, proposed inappropriate jury schemes and inappropriate jury instructions, delayed the trial needlessly, refused to follow the appeals court's instructions, and in general been a jerk of a judge.
The appeals court has been downright abusive toward Judge Gilmore. For example: "Judge Gilmore's jury instruction appears simultaneously to be preventing the Government from enforcing the death penalty against Williams, while prohibiting any ordinary appellate review of the court's determination. This combination of legislating from the bench and acting as a quasi-defense attorney vis-a-vis the jury is unprecedented and ultra vires."
They also do Gilmore no favors in quoting her:
-- Speaking to prosecutors and referring to a report from the defendant's attorneys: "[T]he information that he got from this other guy is exactly the kind of stuff y'all should have been giving. That's better information than what y'all gave."
-- And "Y'all are just kind of piddling around, piddling around trying to make up your mind if you can just kind of get away with not giving it."
-- Last, but not least, "But presumably, you are going to just go back and get a letter from the Attorney General telling me to kiss their butt basically."
I could go on. And the 5th Circuit judges actually do. The opinions are fairly brief. Go read them. Very entertaining!
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution says that "judges ... shall hold their offices during good behavior." Again, read the 5th Circuit's opinions. If her judging -- on top of her intemperate remarks -- aren't a departure from good behavior, then the words have no meaning.
Stuck with judges like this, lawyers are prone to explain away such behavior by saying stupid and condescending things, as in this Houston Chronicle article. "She's one of a kind." "She's very dynamic." "Good attitude and high self-esteem." "Reminds me of Oprah Winfrey."
Sounds like the entries from a high school yearbook. Fer Chrissakes, couldn't anyone come up with "She's fair and she follows the law"? Well, no, for obvious reasons.
Gilmore was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994. Graduated from the University of Houston law school. She's apparently the first UH law grad to win a federal judgeship.
If federal judges were subject to retention elections, a pattern of judging like Gilmore's would be a tempting target for a "no" campaign.
But the only remedy the Constitution provides for such a judge is impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate. If Congress would make more frequent use of its impeachment powers, we'd have less of this kind of behavior. So, dear congresspeople, what are you waiting for? Set an example. Impeach this judge!
For more info see:
Houston's Clear Thinkers
The Conglomerate
The case: United States v. Williams
The judge: Vanessa Gilmore, southern district of Texas
The problem: Failure to follow instructions, among other things
Truck driver Tyrone Williams is on trial for his life in a federal district court in Houston. He's accused of mass murder: walking away from a locked trailer full of illegal immigrants he was transporting, leaving them to bake in south Texas. Nineteen people died.
Williams worked for a smuggling ring. The ringleader pleaded guilty, and a dozen others have been charged. Williams, however, is the only defendant for whom the government seeks the death penalty.
Williams is African-American. Judge Vanessa Gilmore also is African-American. As you can see from this report of a speech she gave at her alma mater, the University of Houston, she takes her African-Americanism seriously. And she wants to know why Williams alone has been charged with a capital crime.
Toward that end, she has (according to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals here and here) threatened prosecutors with inappropriate discovery demands, proposed inappropriate jury schemes and inappropriate jury instructions, delayed the trial needlessly, refused to follow the appeals court's instructions, and in general been a jerk of a judge.
The appeals court has been downright abusive toward Judge Gilmore. For example: "Judge Gilmore's jury instruction appears simultaneously to be preventing the Government from enforcing the death penalty against Williams, while prohibiting any ordinary appellate review of the court's determination. This combination of legislating from the bench and acting as a quasi-defense attorney vis-a-vis the jury is unprecedented and ultra vires."
They also do Gilmore no favors in quoting her:
-- Speaking to prosecutors and referring to a report from the defendant's attorneys: "[T]he information that he got from this other guy is exactly the kind of stuff y'all should have been giving. That's better information than what y'all gave."
-- And "Y'all are just kind of piddling around, piddling around trying to make up your mind if you can just kind of get away with not giving it."
-- Last, but not least, "But presumably, you are going to just go back and get a letter from the Attorney General telling me to kiss their butt basically."
I could go on. And the 5th Circuit judges actually do. The opinions are fairly brief. Go read them. Very entertaining!
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution says that "judges ... shall hold their offices during good behavior." Again, read the 5th Circuit's opinions. If her judging -- on top of her intemperate remarks -- aren't a departure from good behavior, then the words have no meaning.
Stuck with judges like this, lawyers are prone to explain away such behavior by saying stupid and condescending things, as in this Houston Chronicle article. "She's one of a kind." "She's very dynamic." "Good attitude and high self-esteem." "Reminds me of Oprah Winfrey."
Sounds like the entries from a high school yearbook. Fer Chrissakes, couldn't anyone come up with "She's fair and she follows the law"? Well, no, for obvious reasons.
Gilmore was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994. Graduated from the University of Houston law school. She's apparently the first UH law grad to win a federal judgeship.
If federal judges were subject to retention elections, a pattern of judging like Gilmore's would be a tempting target for a "no" campaign.
But the only remedy the Constitution provides for such a judge is impeachment by the House and removal by the Senate. If Congress would make more frequent use of its impeachment powers, we'd have less of this kind of behavior. So, dear congresspeople, what are you waiting for? Set an example. Impeach this judge!
For more info see:
Houston's Clear Thinkers
The Conglomerate
posted by Karl Maher at 10:55 AM
<< Home