In
this e-Newsletter:
A Statement to the Members of the
Chicago Council of Lawyers and Friends of
Chicago Appleseed Fund for
Justice
By Executive Director, Malcolm C.
Rich
I know that you are as
disappointed as I am that judges found unqualified to remain on the
bench by so many bar associations were nonetheless retained in the
November 2006 election. Many people did seek out information about these
judges – voteforjudges.org alone received 900,000 hits and 90,000 pages
were downloaded from the site, and the Council website received about
200,000 hits. However, removing a sitting judge is a daunting task in
light of voter confusion about how to get information about judges,
voter indecision in light of the sheer number of judicial evaluation
results, and the well-funded “vote yes” campaigns sponsored by the
political parties and by the judges themselves.
It is a tradition in
Cook
County to see calls
for changing the way judges are selected – after the election is over
and all the judges have been retained. Yet a recent poll shows that 70%
of the people in
Illinois favor electing
judges, even thought they recognize the problems inherent in a system
that puts hundreds of names on the judicial ballot.
However judges are selected, we need to improve the quality of their
performance once they take the bench. Tens of thousands of people each
year are impacted when their cases are decided by a single judge who
lacks ability and civility. As Executive Director of the Chicago Council
of Lawyers and the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, I suggest we work
on the following goals:
• Convincing Chief Judge Evans to appoint mentors for those judges found
Not Recommended for retention by at least 50% of the bar associations
and newspapers that evaluate judges. This mentoring must be substantial
in terms of time and must be tailored to the weaknesses of the judges.
• Emphasizing that the judges should take to heart the constructive
criticisms were offered, or the compliments they received, in the
evaluation process.
• Urging the administration of the Circuit Court to take judicial
evaluation results into consideration when deciding upon judicial
assignments.
• Having the Chicago Council of Lawyers and Chicago Appleseed develop a
specific proposal for a performance commission that will conduct
professional investigations of judges seeking retention and put the
resulting information before the voters. This will bring more
objectivity, credibility, and professionalism to the process and – we
hope – eventually rid the bench of the worst judges. The performance
commission can either serve as an advisory group – providing the public
with the results of professionally conducted evaluations – or be given
the responsibility of deciding which judges will face the voters (with
only those judges found not recommended for retention placed on the
ballot).
The debate over how to select our judges will continue. We cannot afford
to wait for this debate to resolve itself before attacking a problem
that affects us all, lawyers and non-lawyers alike: how to prevent bad
judges from undermining public confidence in the rule of law. The
Council has convened a Judicial Selection Committee and the Board of
Directors of Chicago Appleseed has begun to discuss alternatives to the
current system of judicial selection and retention.
I invite Council members and friends of Chicago Appleseed to contact me
about how you think we should proceed.
Malcolm C. Rich
Direct Phone: 312-988-6552
Email: malcolmrich@chicagoappleseed.org
Legislative
Priorities of the Chicago Council of Lawyers in regard to Persons
Claimed To Be Enemy Combatants or Subject to Extraordinary Rendition
The Chicago Council of
Lawyers urges the 110th Congress to give priority to the following
matters. Most of the legislation discussed below impacts those
Guantanamo detainees and
persons subject to extraordinary rendition who have not been
charged with War Crimes. (Proposal II. C. below affects persons charged
with War Crimes.)
I. Restoration of Habeas Corpus
The following provisions should be repealed:
A. Section 1005 of the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005 repealed the writ of Habeas Corpus as to
Guantanamo detainees.
The Supreme Court held that this section did not apply retroactively to
pending cases. (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,
126
S. Ct. 2749 (2006).
B. The Military Commissions Act of
2006 went even further.
Section 7 of the Act bars courts from hearing habeas corpus claims from
any alien detained as an enemy combatant (not just Guantanamo
detainees), or who is “awaiting such determination,” regardless of how
long the alien is held without being determined to be an enemy
combatant. It applies by its terms to pending cases.
II. Other
A. Restoration of Court Jurisdiction
over Claims in regard to Illegal Detention
Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (“MCA”) bars courts
from hearing any claim against the
United States or
its agents relating to the “detention, transfer, treatment, trial or
conditions of confinement” of an alien detained as an enemy combatant or
who is “awaiting such determination.” This provision applies not only to
Guantanamo detainees, but also to the
practice of extraordinary rendition, by which the
U.S. has seized
aliens and secretly sent them to another country, such as
Syria, for
detention and interrogation.
B. Restoration of Jurisdiction of
Federal Courts to consider international law and to hear claims under
the Geneva Conventions
Section 5(a) of the MVA bars all persons from invoking the Geneva
Conventions in any habeas or other civil proceeding in which the
United States or
its agent is a party.
Section 6(a) (2) of the MCA provides that “no foreign or international
source of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts
of the
United States in
interpreting the prohibitions” in the newly amended War Crimes Act. This
provision eliminates the most significant sources of law for
interpreting the Geneva Conventions.
Both sections should be repealed.
C. Barring of testimony obtained by
coercion in War Crimes Trials
A section of the MCA bars the use at trial of statements obtained by
“torture,” but allows the use under certain circumstances of coerced
testimony. (Section creating 10 U.S.C. § 948(r).) That section should be
amended to bar not only statements obtained by torture but those
obtained by "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” The
McCain Amendment, Section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005,
Pub. L. 109-148, 119 Stat. 2739, provides that no person in the custody
or under the physical control of the United States Government shall be
subject to "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” It
defines this phrase as treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth,
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The above statement of priorities
was approved by the Council’s Board of Governors, and was developed by
the Council’s Civil Liberties Committee, chaired by Gordon G. Waldron.
The Committee meets monthly. For more information, please contact Gordon
at 312-353-7525 or Malcolm C. Rich at 312- 988-6552.
20 Years of Service for Executive Director Malcolm C. Rich
Happy Anniversary, Malcolm!
On December 1, Malcolm
C. Rich reached a landmark: twenty years of service as Executive
Director of the Chicago Council of Lawyers and the Fund for Justice (now
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice).
"The past twenty years with the Council and the Fund have been a
rewarding challenge," stated Malcolm. "We have seen tremendous growth
and change in both organizations, but our missions remain the same:
striving for the highest possible standards in the administration of
justice, in government effectiveness and in social justice issues. The
two organizations sometimes work together and sometimes work
independently. Both are always seeking systemic reform. I'm proud to be
part of the Council and Chicago Appleseed, and I am inspired as we
continue our work in the years to come."
Congratulations, Malcolm! On behalf of the Council and Chicago Appleseed,
we thank you for your continued hard work, and proudly join in continued
partnership for the future. Here's to twenty more years!