Now, those are the words of William Barber, the well-known civil rights activist. Judge Scheindlin, can you talk about Mr. Farr and the significance of his -- Trump's choice?
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN: Well, I can a little bit. I wrote about Mr. Farr also in my New York Times op-ed, but in a much-reduced fashion, because I wrote about four nominees rather than one. And I pointed out many of the same things. But one fact that I also pointed out is that President Bush had nominated Mr. Farr in 2006, but he didn't go through. I mean, then, even then, that Congress said, "No way. This person should not be on the federal bench." Now he comes back, redux -- what is it? -- 12 years later, and suddenly he's going to be acceptable.
Now, what has changed? What has changed is we don't have the filibuster rule. This is very important to explain. It used to take 60 votes, but now it takes only a bare majority. Now, that changed under the Democrats in 2013, but they had to do it. They had to use that nuclear option, because their picks were being blocked in the Senate. And while they knew they did that at their own peril, that it would come back to haunt them, there are many who believe, even if they hadn't done it, it would be done now. The Republicans would do the same thing. So, six of the Trump judges have already been confirmed with far less than 60 votes. They would never have been confirmed before. And that's going to happen with Farr, if he's confirmed.
Now, the other thing I would say about Farr is that it's a district court nominee. That's the lowest court. That's the trial court. Thankfully, right now, he's not being nominated for an appellate court. But it wouldn't surprise me, if he is confirmed, in the next two, three years, they'll put him up for the circuit court. I have no doubt about that. This is a person who does not belong on the federal bench. His views are unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. That's the problem with the Trump picks. They're simply not mainstream people. They are extremists. And this man is an extremist who doesn't belong on the federal bench, does not understand fairness and justice. And he'll turn the clock back. He was a great supporter of North Carolina's voter suppression law, which the circuit reversed and said it targeted, with almost surgical precision, against black voters. So this is a dangerous person to put on the bench.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, one of the things that you've raised is that, in the past, even though there's always been partisan voting in the Senate on these judges, there was always a basic understanding that a person had to be qualified. And now we're seeing a record number of people who are deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association. Your sense of that?
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN: Well, there are two things to say. While presidents always pick people who would reflect their own values, there was a lot of consensus. There was a lot of bipartisan support. Most district court nominees were approved in the nineties. That is, 90 votes, 95, 93, 90-something. The vast majority were approved bipartisan, for the district courts, in particular. I'm sure my own vote was in the nineties when I was approved by Congress. So, we didn't see votes of 51. We didn't even see votes of 60. People were approved, because there was consensus. And the home state senators had a role. And they're trying to undo that. So things have changed remarkably now. There's no bipartisanship. It's strictly partisan-line voting on a number of these people.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, for people who are not judges or lawyers, can you explain the difference between the district court, the appeals court, what it means to be a federal judge like yourself, a state judge, and what are the cases each one hears?
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN: That's a lot of questions at once, and I'll try to straighten that out. So the federal courts hear both civil and criminal cases, but that involve federal laws or the Constitution. The state courts do local things, like local crime, domestic relationships, wills, real estate, housing, landlord-tenant court -- very different kinds of issues.
So let's turn back to the federal courts. First of all, the federal courts are lifetime appointments. They are not elected. They're appointed by each president. And people do tend to stay 30 years, on average. They hear terrorism cases on the criminal side. They hear political corruption cases. They hear narcotics cases, drug cases, but so do the state courts, so that can be a little bit of both. But they have a broader focus on the criminal side. On the civil side, of course, they hear civil rights cases that arise under the Constitution. And as you know, I've handled some of those myself over the years. So, it's a very different court.
Now, you also asked me to explain the trial courts and the appellate courts. So, the trial courts, which is what we call the lowest court, the district court, it doesn't mean we're lowly, it just means we're first. So, the district courts try the cases. The case is filed there. The case is tried there. And the district court really sets the stage. I think it's the best job of all, because you --
AMY GOODMAN: And that's where you served.
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN: That's where I served, for 22 years. And you get to write the first opinion. You really shape the case. Then the circuit court reviews what you did, but they can only deal with the record you created. So they sit on top of you, and they review what you do. And as I said before, they write maybe 60,000 decisions, and the lower courts write maybe 355,000.
OK, then, from there, you get to the Supreme Court, but only extremely rarely, since they average between 65 and 80 cases a year now. Imagine the odds of ever being heard in the Supreme Court. So, really, the courts of appeals are the last stop. Now, there are 13 of them. And when President Obama took office, 10 of those 13 had a majority of Republican-appointed judges. But when he left, only four were majority Republican-appointed. In other words, he shifted the balance of the circuit courts. What we're going to see now is a shift back. So this rapid effort to get circuit judges confirmed, that's what President Trump has done, more than any -- 12 have been confirmed for the circuit courts -- is to shift that balance as fast as possible.
AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break. When we come back, we're going to also ask about some of your cases --
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN: Good.
AMY GOODMAN: -- like the very well-known stop-and-frisk case in New York, and also the other judges that you are -- or the nominees, that you are concerned about.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
