|
Vol. 40, Number 1 — January 2008
2007 Year-End Report on
the Federal Judiciary
On a warm and sunny Wednesday in September
of the past year, a Russian judge, accompanied by
a fellow Russian and two American judges, walked
among the white headstones of Arlington National
Cemetery. Like other visitors, the Russian judge
came to pay his respects and lay a wreath at one of
the markers. And like others navigating the solemn
rows of white stones, he and his companions asked
for directions from fellow visitors. A teacher leading a
group of school children offered to help, and she led
the judge to the grave of a former Army private who
had served his country in World War II and again in
later life.
The teacher asked the Russian judge, through an
interpreter, why he wished to honor the memory
of William H. Rehnquist. The judge, Justice Yuriy
Ivanovich Sidorenko of the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation, explained that, in Chief Justice
Rehnquist’s later years, they had become friends.
The teacher remarked that she did not know much
about our former Chief Justice, and she invited
Justice Sidorenko to speak to her students about their
friendship. Standing near the Chief Justice’s headstone,
Justice Sidorenko provided an impromptu and
personal insight into their shared interest in the rule
of law. He expressed his admiration for our late Chief
and described how the American jurist had provided
advice and encouragement to Russian judges as they
took up the challenge of reforming their judiciary in
the post-Soviet era.
|
|
|
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Yuriy Ivanovich Sidorenko of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, his wife Svetlana, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. during a visit this year by Sidorenko to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Photo by Jennifer Carpenter, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States. |
|
|
During his September visit, Justice Sidorenko
expressed similar sentiments in a private meeting
with my colleagues and me. He recalled how, when they first met in 2002, Chief
Justice Rehnquist had noted his
Swedish heritage. They discussed
the 1709 Battle of Poltava, where
Peter the Great of Russia won a
decisive victory over invading
Swedish forces. Justice Sidorenko
recounted how, when he
later encountered difficulties
with the Russian legislature
in achieving judicial reforms
inspired by the example of
American courts, the Chief
Justice sent him a handwritten
note of encouragement:
“Remember Poltava.”
Few could have imagined
these episodes a mere 25
years ago. Justice Sidorenko’s
words are poignant, but his actions
in seeking to reform the Russian
judiciary reflect a more fundamental
truth that should resonate with all
Americans: When foreign nations
discard despotism and undertake to
reform their judicial systems, they
look to the United States Judiciary
as the model for securing the rule of
law.
In recent years, even mature
democracies with established traditions
have modified their judicial
systems to incorporate American
principles and practices. For
example, Great Britain, which
exported its common law system
to the American colonies some 400
years ago, has recently imported
the distinctly American concept of
separation of powers. It has transferred
the House of Lords’ judicial
review functions to an independent
Supreme Court. Japan has adopted
trial procedures inspired by American
jury practice, while South Korea
is increasingly employing Americanstyle
oral advocacy in its judicial
review proceedings. But perhaps
most important, our federal courts
provide the benchmark for emerging
democracies that seek to structure
their judicial systems to protect basic
rights that Americans have long
enjoyed as the norm.
Most Americans are far too busy
to spend much time pondering the
role of the United States Judiciary—
they simply and understandably
expect the court system to work.
But as we begin the New Year, I ask
a moment’s reflection on how our
country might look in the absence
of a skilled and independent Judiciary.
We do not need to look far
beyond our borders, or beyond
the front page of any newspaper,
to see what is at stake. More than
two hundred years after the American
Revolution, much of the world
remains subject to judicial systems
that provide doubtful opportunities
for challenging government action
as contrary to law, or receiving a fair
adjudication of criminal charges, or
securing a fair remedy for wrongful
injury, or protecting rights in property,
or obtaining an impartial resolution
of a commercial dispute. Many foreign judges cannot
exercise independent judgment
on matters of law without fear
of reprisal or removal.
Americans should take
enormous pride in our judicial
system. But there is no
cause for complacency. Our
judicial system inspires the
world because of the commitment
of each new generation
of judges who build upon the
vision and accomplishments of those
who came before. I am committed
to continuing three of my predecessor’s
important but unfinished
initiatives to maintain the quality of
our courts.
First, I will carry on the efforts
to improve communications
with the Executive and Legislative
Branches of government. The Constitution’s provision for three
separate but coordinate Branches
envisions that the Branches will
communicate through appropriate
means on administrative matters
of common concern. Each has a
valuable perspective on the other.
The Branches already engage in
constructive dialogue through
a number of familiar forums,
including the Judicial Conference,
congressional hearings, and advisory
committee meetings. But the
familiar avenues are not necessarily
the only ones.
The Judiciary has a special
interest, rooted in history, in
improving relations with the Legislative
Branch. Until 1935, the
Congress and the Supreme Court
were both housed in the Capitol,
and it has been observed that the
sharing of common space encouraged
mutual understanding, respect,
and collegiality even as the legislators
and judges performed their
distinctly different responsibilities.
I am assured that my colleagues
are happy in our separate building
and not inclined to move back to
the Capitol (even were we invited),
so I have asked the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts
to consider other opportunities for
improving inter-Branch communication
and cooperation. The separate
Branches may not always agree on
matters of mutual interest, but each
should strive, through respectful
exchange of insights and ideas, to
know and appreciate where the
others stand.
Second, I share my predecessor’s
view that the Judiciary must relentlessly
ensure that federal judges
maintain the highest standards of
integrity. Federal judges hold a position
of public trust, and the public has
a right to demand that they adhere to
a demanding code of conduct. The
overwhelming majority do. But for
those who do not, the Judiciary must
take appropriate action. Last year, a
study committee commissioned by
the former Chief Justice and chaired
by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer
issued a Report on the Implementation
of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980. While the
study committee found that,
overall, the Judiciary does an excellent
job of handling complaints
about judges, it also found that
there remains room for improvement.
The Judicial Conference has
implemented eight of the twelve
recommendations in the Report,
and the remaining four will be
considered at the Conference’s next
meeting.
James Madison observed in
Federalist No. 51 that, if men were
angels, there would be no need for
government. Likewise, if judges
were beyond imperfection, there
would be no need for judicial
discipline procedures. History and
human nature teach that the Judiciary
must be continually vigilant
in maintaining the high standards
of judicial office. When entertaining
a complaint about a judge, the Judiciary
must apply the same qualities
of reason, impartiality, and wisdom
that epitomize the judicial process.
The Judiciary cannot tolerate
misconduct. The public rightly
expects the Judiciary to be fair but
firm in policing its own.
|
|
|
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. |
|
|
Finally, I am resolved to continue
Chief Justice Rehnquist’s twentyyear
pursuit of equitable salaries for
federal judges. Over the past year,
congressional leaders and a wide
range of groups that value a capable
and independent Judiciary have
made progress on this matter. The
House Judiciary Committee passed
a bill by an overwhelming bipartisan
vote of 28 to five that would
help reverse the steady erosion
of judicial salaries since 1969, the
benchmark year that Congress has
utilized in recent years for assessing
federal pay levels. The bill would
restore judicial pay to the same level
that judges would have received
if Congress had granted them the
same cost-of-living pay adjustments
that other federal employees
have received since 1989—not a full
restoration but a significant one.
The Senate Judiciary Committee
was considering a similar bill when
the 2007 Session ended. We are
grateful for the continuing support
of the bipartisan leadership in both
the House and the Senate, as well
as the support of the President, on
this vital legislation. The legislation
reflects a commitment on the
part of the Legislative and Executive
Branches to carry out their constitutional
responsibilities with respect
to the Judicial Branch, and I urge
prompt passage as a first order of
business in the new session.
The pending legislation strikes a
reasonable compromise for the dedicated
federal judges who, year after
year, have discharged their important
duties for steadily eroding real
pay. This salary restoration legislation
is vital now that the denial
of annual increases over the years
has left federal trial judges—the
backbone of our system of justice—
earning about the same as (and in some cases less than) first-year
lawyers at firms in major cities,
where many of the judges are
located.
I do not need to rehearse the
compelling arguments in favor of
this legislation. They have already
been made by distinguished jurists,
lawyers, and economists in congressional
hearings, letters, and editorials—
and seconded by a broad
spectrum of commercial, governmental,
and public interest organizations
that appear as litigants
before the courts. I simply ask once
again for a moment’s reflection on
how America would look in the
absence of a skilled and independent
Judiciary. Consider the critical
role of our courts in preserving individual
liberty, promoting commerce,
protecting property, and ensuring
that every person who appears in
an American court can expect fair
and impartial justice. The cost of
this long overdue legislation—less
than .004% of the annual federal
budget—is miniscule in comparison
to what is at stake.
In closing, I thank the judges and
court staff throughout the Nation for
their continued hard work and dedication.
I am grateful for the personal
sacrifices they and their families make
every day. As we face the challenges
of the coming year, I offer this note
of encouragement: Remember Philadelphia.
On a daily basis, you are
continuing our Founders’ profound
commitment to posterity made in
that city with the promulgation of our
Constitution 220 years ago.
|
|