More on Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs...

Posted in the Banking Forum

Comments
1 - 2 of 2 Comments Last updated Sep 29, 2013
A Justday

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Read this - Judge Gerard Lynch, who favored standing, offers a measured account of how “the glory of our system that even our elected leaders must defend the legality of their conduct when challenged.”

Instead of sticking with such profound and important questions, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs decided to take a more personal and mocking approach:“As best I can see,” he wrote,“the only purpose of this litigation is for counsel and plaintiffs to act out their fantasy of persecution, to validate their pretensions to policy expertise, to make themselves consequential rather than marginal, and to raise funds for self-sustaining litigation.” He then analogized the lawsuit to a “plaintiff’s allegation that the CIA is controlling him through a radio embedded in his molar.” For good reason, no other judge joined Jacobs’ inflammatory opinion.

Where is the Justice in America??? I ask!!!
A Justday

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

To continue: This is not the first controversy for Jacobs who was put on the bench in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush. Jacobs in one of those jurists (criticized in prior columns) who seem to relish speaking before ideological groups and discussing matters that are either before his court or likely to come before him. For example, on November 19, 2010, he delivered a speech titled “National Security & The Constitution” before a gathering of the Federalist Society at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington where he criticized courts for their rulings against national security agencies and lawyers who distrust the military. What concerns me with these types of speeches is that judges can feel that they have to maintain “their base” and play to the ideological appeal of reckless rhetoric and posturing from the bench.

He was criticized for saying in one case that he refused to even read the majority opinion before filing a dissent as a sign of contempt for his fellow judges. He simply noted “I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion. So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it.”

While judges are quick to sanction lawyers for bad behavior, they clearly find it more difficult to deal with jurists like Jones and Jacobs. Civility is an important value in our courts and these judges undermine the judiciary with such inflammatory and unprofessional commentary.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••