Other courts

by Jeremy Leaming

The misconduct complaint lodged against federal appeals court Judge Edith H. Jones is now pending before the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reports The Times-Picayune.

A coalition of civil liberties groups, including the Austin NAACP and the Texas Civil Rights Project, recently filed a complaint against Jones, who is based in Houston and a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, alleging she made racist comments during a Federalist Society event earlier this year. Affidavits in the complaint, said that Judge Jones stated that African-Americans and Latinos are predisposed to violence. According to other affidavits she allegedly said, “Mexicans would prefer to be on death row in the United States than in prison in Mexico.”

Allegedly Jones (pictured) also said cited her religious beliefs in handling death penalty sentences. According to an affidavit, the judge allegedly said that sentencing a person to death gives them the time and opportunity to reconcile with God. In this post, ThinkProgress centers on some of the judge’s wobbly opinion in a sexual harassment lawsuit and erratic behavior on the bench.

The Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction includes Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

After news of the complaint surfaced, U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) said, “The alleged statements, if true, demonstrate personal racial and religious bias as well as questionable legal analysis. These biases are incredibly inappropriate for a sitting jurist at any level, let alone a former chief judge on one of the highest level Article III Courts of Appeal,” TPM reported.

The Judicial Code of Conduct defines misconduct, in part, as “discriminating against litigants or attorneys on account of race, ethnicity, sex, or other legally protected attribute” or “engaging in partisan political activity or making inappropriately partisan statements ….”

by Jeremy Leaming

Are we over reacting when tossing around Orwellian to describe the federal government’s massive surveillance programs or denouncing President Obama as losing all credibility on this issue, as The New York Times Editorial Board has done?

We noted one of the massive spying programs yesterday regarding a FISA Court order granting the National Security Agency the power to collect telephone information from Verizon. The Guardian released the FISA Court order in its coverage. Later The Guardian and The Washington Post reported on a program called PRISM where the NSA and FBI are “tapping directly into central servers of nine leading Internet companies [like Google, Facebook and Apple], extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs ….” The order to collect telephone data has apparently been made much easier to obtain because of the administration’s sweeping interpretation of a provision in the Patriot Act.

President Obama today dismissed criticism of the surveillance programs as hype. At a press conference this morning intended to focus on implementation of the Affordable Care Act he was confronted with questions about the two programs.

Obama first acknowledged he has a duty to protect the constitutional right to privacy and civil liberties, but quickly shifted into defending the massive surveillance programs.

“The programs discussed over the last couple of days in the press are secret in the sense that they are classified but they are not secret in the sense that when it comes to phone calls every member of Congress has been briefed on this program,” Obama said. “With respect to all these programs the relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programs. These are programs that have been authorized by broad bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006. So I think it’s important to understand that your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed about exactly what we’re doing.”

He claimed that the “intelligence community” is not looking at content of telephone calls, but instead sifting “so-called metadata” for leads of people plotting to engage in terrorism. He then knocked coverage of the two surveillance programs as “hype.” He added that the program of collecting telephone data is overseen by Congress and the FISA Court, which was created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

With respect to the Internet surveillance program, he said PRISM does not apply to U.S. citizens and that Congress is fully aware of the program and that the FISA Court “has to authorize it.” They are both programs, the president said, that have been approved by Congress and the FISA Court is overseeing them.

The Dish’s Andrew Sullivan writes, “I don’t find such data-mining for national security purposes to be that horrifying. If that’s the price we have to pay for deterring Jihadist attacks, then we should recognize there’s a trade-off. The problem is that we, the public, cannot judge the gravity of those threats and so cannot even weigh the necessity of giving up our privacy.”  

Geoffrey R. Stone, a constitutional expert and distinguished law professor at the University of Chicago, in a piece for The Huffington Post says that “based on the facts that have been made public,” the government actions “are neither unconstitutional nor otherwise unlawful under existing law.” Stone, however, adds that he would “personally like to see the interpretation of the Constitution and the state of federal legislation changed in particular ways that might alter this conclusion ….” 

Both Sullivan and Stone are touching upon the trade-offs that Obama also mentioned during his press conference today. In some instances national security will trump the interests of protecting privacy.

Others, like The New York Times Editorial Board believe the Obama administration has recklessly expanded the surveillance programs started under his predecessor and given more power to the nation’s unwieldy intelligence apparatus. “The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act, enacted in the heat of fear after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by members of Congress who mostly had not even read it, was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.”