Until now, federal courts have funded operations during the government shutdown by digging into their financial reserves. On October 17, however, that money is expected to run out, forcing cash-strapped courts to make some very hard decisions.
Judges are the human face of the law, and international, as well as domestic, observers look to the courts’ composition as a measure of how well the law represents and is accessible to a diverse population.
Unfortunately, our federal courts, which were designed to be outside of politics, have become entrenched in partisan battles. Slashing court budgets and refusing to confirm judges for petty political advantage is now standard practice.
A new report from the Center for Public Integrity reveals nearly 200 judges attended seminars sponsored by foundations and multinational corporations — groups who are also frequent litigants in federal courts.
While Sen. Rand Paul’s talking filibuster of John Brennan as CIA Director was an improvement to ongoing silent obstructionism in the Senate, he and his colleagues should also drop their ongoing silent filibuster of judicial nominees.
It shouldn’t be controversial that courts are supposed to interpret and apply the law — after all, that’s the essence of what courts do. But Colorado is trying to turn this principle on its head.
The ruling is a signal that states can indeed implement common-sense regulations to prevent judicial campaign excesses and, in turn, safeguard fair and impartial courts.
Washington is mired in gridlock. But hyper-partisan politics does more than just slow down government. It also cripples the federal judiciary, one of the bedrocks of our democracy.
The American Bar Association showed its leadership by passing a resolution on judicial disqualification and urging greater transparency of judicial campaign spending.
With the lowest judicial pay in the country, relative to cost of living, a Special Commission in New York weighs the pros and cons of adjusting salaries.
