When does the public have a right to know about a Federal Judges retirement letter to the President?

Good Morning Flint
4/2/09
Terry Bankert
http://www.FlintDivorce.com

Having just gone through the interview process for judicial appointment to a State Court position I was curious , no interest in serving, about the selection process for the Federal Court . I heard a rumor about a possible retirement from the Federal Bench and the scrambling of local State Judges for consideration. I do not know if anybody is retiring. I do wonder if the letter of intent to retire is public? How does the public know of the intended retirement of a jurist?

HOW DOES A FEDERAL JUDGE RETIRE and WHEN THE PROCESS BEGINS IS IT PUBLIC?

Judges cease performing their judicial duties when they retire by choice or because of ill health or death, or when they are subjected to the disciplinary actions of others.[5]

FEDERAL JUDGES

The main actors in the federal system are the men and women who serve as judges and justices. What characteristics do these people have that distinguish them from the rest of the citizenry? What are the qualifications – both formal and informal – for appointment to the bench? How are judges selected and who are the participants in the process? How do judges learn to be judges? How are judges disciplined and when are they removed from the bench?[5]

WHEN JUDGES RETIRE

Perhaps more problematic than removing jurists for misconduct is the removal of those who have become too old and infirm to carry out their judicial responsibilities effectively. Congress has tried with some success to tempt the more senior judges into retirement by making it financially more attractive to do so. Since 1984 federal judges have been permitted to retire with full pay and benefits under what is called the rule of 80; that is, when the sum of a judge's age and number of years on the bench is 80. Congress has also permitted judges to go on senior status instead of accepting full retirement. In exchange for a reduced caseload they are permitted to retain their office and staff and – equally important – the prestige and self-respect of being an active judge.[5]

Judges often time their resignations to occur when their party controls the presidency so that they will be replaced by a jurist of similar political and judicial orientation. A 1990 study found that especially since 1954, "judicial retirement/resignation rates have been strongly influenced by political/ideological considerations, and infused with partisanship," thus indicating that many jurists view themselves as part of a policy link between the people, the judicial appointment process, and the subsequent decisions of the judges and justices.[5]

WHEN A JUDGE NOTIFIES THE PRESIDENT OF INTENT TO RETIRE, IS THIS PUBLIC INFORMATION?

Technically, the president nominates all judicial candidates, but historically the chief executive has been more involved in appointments to the Supreme Court than to the lower courts. [5]

FEDERAL JUDGES ARE NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE

Federal judges are nominated by the President, confirmed by the United States Senate, and serve a life term. Potential nominees are usually recommended by members of the Senate who are from the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee is responsible for conducting confirmation hearings for each nominee. In this framework, whom you know as well as your political leanings count. [4]

THE PRESIDENT DELIBERATES THEN ANNOUNCES TO THE PUBLIC

The framework of judicial selection is the same for all federal judges, although the roles of the participants vary depending on the level of the U.S. judiciary. All nominations are made by the president after due consultation with the White House staff, the attorney general's office, certain senators, and other political operatives. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an arm of the Justice Department, customarily performs a routine security check. After the nomination is announced to the public, various interest groups that believe they have a stake in the appointment may lobby for or against the candidate. Also, the candidate's qualifications will be evaluated by a committee of the American Bar Association. The candidate's name is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which conducts an investigation of the nominee's fitness for the post. If the committee's vote is favorable, the nomination is sent to the floor of the Senate, where it is either approved or rejected by a simple majority vote.[5]

OBAMA HAS 40 PLUSE JUDGESHIPS TO NOMINATE CANDIDATES FOR.

Nationwide, at least 41 vacant judgeships - 29 district and 12 circuit - will await Obama once he takes office, according to the Federal Judicial Center.(11/23/08)
The President will convey to a judge his interest in nominating him to the Federal District Court. Following confirmation by the United States Senate. This creates the impression that it may be a non public process in the beginning.

THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRESIDENT AUTHORITY TO APPOINT JUDGES

"The Appointments Clause of the Constitution vests the President with the authority to nominate people to federal judgeships, and it vests the Senate with the authority to give its Advice and Consent on nominations to the federal bench," explained Gerhardt. "Article I of the Constitution further empowers the Senate with the authority 'to determine rules for its proceedings.'" Consequently, the Senate has developed a number of procedural rules to govern confirmation decisions. [4]

US SENATORS OF THE STATE OF THE APPOINTMENT AND PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT HAVE A GREAT INFLUENCE ON THE PICK OF A FEDERAL JUDICIAL NOMINEE

A second reason why presidents are likely to devote more attention to Supreme Court appointments and less to lower court appointments is that tradition has allowed for individual senators and local party leaders to influence, and often dominate, lower court appointments. The practice known as senatorial courtesy is part of the appointment process for district judges. Under senatorial courtesy, senators of the president's political party who are from the home state of the nominee are asked their opinions of the candidate by the Senate Judiciary Committee. In expressing their views about a particular candidate, these senators are in a position to virtually veto a nomination. Senatorial courtesy does not apply to appellate court appointments, although it is customary for presidents to defer to senators of their party from states that make up the appellate court circuit.[5]

US SENATORS WILL SUBMIT NAMES TO THE PRESIDENT.

In the case of district judge appointments, where names are often submitted by home-state senators, the Justice Department's function is more that of screener than of initiator. Regardless of who comes up with a list of names, the Justice Department's primary duty is to evaluate the candidate's personal, professional, and political qualifications. In performing this role the department may work closely with the White House staff, with the senators involved in the nomination, and with party leaders who may wish to have some input in choosing the nominee.[5]

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION RATES CANDIDATES

For more than five decades, the Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the ABA has played a key role in evaluating the professional credentials of potential nominees for positions on the federal bench. The committee, whose 15 members represent all the U.S. circuits, evaluates candidates on the basis of three criteria: judicial temperament, professional competence, and integrity. A candidate approved by the committee is rated either "qualified" or "well qualified," whereas an unacceptable candidate is stamped with a "not qualified" label.[5]
Posted Here by Terry Bankert 04/02/09 You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362


-
Sources
[1]
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/metro.ssf?/base/news/122743180354080.xml&coll=2

-
[2]
http://www.fjc.gov/

-
[3]
http://washburnlaw.edu/news/2004/2004-04pdp-crow.php
-
[4]
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/861/Careers:-Federal-Judge/
-
[5]
http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/May/20080522224217eaifas0.5669672.html



-FYI
Judge Paul V. Gadola
United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of MichiganFederal Building and U.S. Courthouse600 Church Street, Room 132Flint, MI 48502Courtroom: Room 127Chambers Telephone Number: (810) 341-7845Courtroom Deputy - Ruth Brissaud: (810) 341-7845Electronic Court Recorder - Jennifer Chase : (810) 341-7882
The Honorable Paul V. Gadola was born in Flint, Michigan, on July 21, 1929. Judge Gadola graduated from Michigan State University, with honors, in 1951, and received his Juris Doctor Degree from the University of Michigan Law School, in 1953.
He served in the U.S. Army from 1953 to 1955. Judge Gadola was in private practice in Genesee County, Michigan, from 1955 to 1989. Judge Gadola was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and took office on January 6, 1989. Prior to taking office, he was certified as a Diplomat in Civil Trial Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and as a Lifetime Fellow of the American Trial Lawyers Foundation, and served as a arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association and as a mediator for the Circuit Courts of Genesee and Shiawassee Counties. Judge Gadola is also a Fellow of the Michigan State Bar Foundation.
He is a member of the Executive Board of the Federal Bar Association - Eastern District of Michigan Chapter, and is the President of the Michigan Chapter of the Incorporated Society of Irish/American Lawyers, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Historical Society for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and is also a member of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society.
Judge Gadola is a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, and of the Advisory Committee of its Michigan Chapter, and of the Board of Directors of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He is also a member of the Philadelphia Society, the Economic Club of Detroit, and the Committee of Sponsors of the Flint College and Cultural Development Fund.
He is a member of the Hannah Society and the President's Club of Michigan State University and has served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Michigan State University Development Fund and as a member of the National Board of Directors of Michigan State University Alumni Association, and served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Mott Community College Foundation.
Prior to taking the bench, Judge Gadola was an elected member of the Board of Trustees of Mott Community College, located in Flint, from 1969 to 1989 and served as its Chairman from 1983 to 1989. He formerly served as President of the Urban League of Flint, President of the Cystic Fibrosis Research Foundation of Genesee County, Chairman of the March of Dimes of Genesee County and Vice-President of the Genesee County Legal Aid Society and as a Director of the Flint Environmental Action Team. He also formerly served as a Director of the Flint Area Convention and Tourist Council.
-
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Judges/guidelines/topic.cfm?topic_id=160

-
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Judges/guidelines/index.cfm?judgeID=10

Sphere: Related Content