The Federal government has a law on the books that says no college benefits for illegal immigrants “based on residency” unless also available to all U.S. citizens.Most states charge more tuition for out of state residents attending their schools than for in state residents.

California and nine other states provide that illegal immigrants who graduate from the respective high schools of those states will only be charged the lower in state resident tuition rate even though they are illegal immigrants and therefore, per se, not residents of the state in question.

In California, in state residents pay up to $23,000 per year less than out of state residents to attend four year universities.  The aggregate cost to California taxpayers of approximately 25,000 illegal immigrants obtaining this break in California tuition rates is approximately $200 million per year.

Not a big deal, right?  California is just awash with extra money, isn’t it?  No problem then for California taxpayers subsidizing illegal immigrants to the tune of $200 million per year, right?  And who knows how much taxpayers in the nine other states are spending on this kind of subsidy?  However, if the average subsidy in each of these other nine states is half what it is in California, then the total tab for this tuition break for illegal immigrants is in excess of $1 billion per year!

Oh, wait a minute, you say, California isn’t sitting around with all kinds of extra money, just looking for ways to spend it?  California is actually bleeding tens of billions of dollars per year in deficit spending, trying to figure out how to reduce its deficit spending, unable remotely to balance it’s budget.  In fact, California has been forced to increase dramatically the tuition rates it’s charging to both its resident students and its nonresident students.  So, California residents and legal California non-resident U.S. citizens are now subsiding this $200 million per year benefit to illegal immigrants.

Aside from the pure economics of this situation, there’s also that pesky little federal law mentioned in the opening paragraph above.  California and nine other states are giving this lower resident tuition rate to illegal immigrants, but not to other out of state non-resident U.S. citizens, who are not also receiving this tuition rate break, but are instead paying as much as $23,000 per year more per out of state U.S. citizen.

The question, then, is whether this benefit to illegal residents in these ten states not also available to all U.S. citizens is “based on residency”?

Clear as…mud.  Suit was brought in California to prohibit this alleged violation of the federal law.  The California Court of Appeal ruled that the California break violated the federal law, concluding that the break was “based on residency” because the break allowed for the lower “resident” tuition rate.  In Martinez vs California Board of Regents, however, the California Supreme Court reversed the lower decision, saying that the break was based on graduation from high school, but not on where the illegal immigrant was residing at the time of the tuition break.

Let’s get serious here.  While either interpretation can be credibly argued (the break is “based on residency” tuition rates, but is not based on where the illegal immigrant resides when going to college), the truth is this is a matter of the California Supreme Court legislating policy, something courts are duty bound not to do.

It’s beyond question that thousands of innocent young illegal immigrants who have lived here most all of their lives not at their doing, and who have no other place to call “home,” might be denied an education if they didn’t get this tuition break.  (There are such things as student loans.)  However, U.S. citizens outside California are being denied the same break and some California resident U.S. citizens are being denied an education because they can’t afford tuition hikes in part necessary to subsidize this California law.

What is really bad here is the UGLY behavior of our federal government–attacking Arizona for a state immigration law not inconsistent with the existing federal law, but remaining conspicuously quiet here where this California law (and the same law in nine other states) does appear to contradict the logic and policy underlying this federal law.  Why the apparent inconsistent approach on the part of the federal government?

Actually, at least in one sense, there isn’t any inconsistency.  In fact, our federal political leaders are consistently taking inconsistent positions, burying their heads in the sand, so as consistently to avoid the risk of offending the huge Hispanic vote.

Again, NoPoli Network News wishes to make clear that there are innocent youths on both sides of this issue who should be fairly and reasonably accommodated.  We need our political representatives, on both sides of the aisle, returning veterans and newly elected, to come together and pass a definitive immigration reform act that will treat fairly all concerned, probably none getting everything they want, but at least honorably and proactively resolving this abysmal default with honor, rather than continuing to allow it to go by default.

Until this is accomplished, our political leaders are continuing not to lead, and are flunking out–once again.  Any tuition breaks they got when they were in school was certainly wasted on them:)

          No shortage of candidates here, a big to do about…very little:

          1.  Wikileaks, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a very poor example of what freedom of the press is meant to uphold and protect.  The alleged sexual predator behind this organization is a politial predator as well, an opportunist seeking to make himself important when he is anything but important.

          2.  The New York Times (and a few select other members of its fraternity), trading on its reputation to create sales by claims of worthwhile news when lending its name and credibility to Wikileaks is anything but worthwhile news.  If it stuck to the editorial integrity on which it was founded, it would have told Wikileaks to put it where the sun doesn’t shine, and take a hike.

          3.  Our U.S. government should just have kept its mouth shut, embraced the very inaction for which it is generally, and rightfully, criticized, and done and said nothing.  Nope, it couldn’t figure that out.  Instead it’s running around, huffing and puffing, and threatening to prosecute someone before it has even figured out what laws have been broken and by whom and whether it has any jurisdiction to prosecute anyone here whatsoever.  It ought to have taken the high road and just kept quiet until it actually had something worth saying.  Remained the victim, not just another bully. Better it should figure out how to prosecute those sitting and languishing shamefully in Gitmo, and how to make some worthwhile, helpful new laws to advance the interests of we the people and to fix our economy.  As for the underlying circumstances, but for the chronic lying, our government is guilty of doing little more than what it should be doing.  Rather than lying, however, it should just decline to address need to know matters other than on a need to know basis.  Like our first president, when he cut down the cherry tree, our government shouldn’t go around telling lies, especially when the numbers who know and can leak the truth to opportunists like Wikileaks are as many as there are.   

          4.  All the other pundits out there trying to insinuate themselves into the fray, kind of paragraph 2 above wannabes, debating back and forth who’s right and who’s wrong, but who don’t really have a dog in this hunt.

          No shortage of embarrassing candidates here. Less than 400 words needed to show no real story here either.

          Finally, a breath of bipartisanship politics?  Maybe.  We’ll see.

          All it took was Charles Rangel, a “distinguished” member of the of U.S. House of Representatives for New York for lo all these past 40 many years.  Just unanimously convicted by the House Ethics Committee (four Democrats and four Republicans) on 11 of 12 ethics charges.  Be still my heart, Democrats and Republicans voting together–unanimously no less–on something…anything, even something so obvious as the case against Representative Rangel.  Was he guilty?  Is the Pope Catholic?  Duh!

           Distinguished?  Charlie?  To be sure, there are many who have been singing Mr. Rangel’s praises in the past few months while the charges against him were dangling over his head (and for long before that).  And who will continue to do so in the days ahead, while the “punishment” for his multiple violations of House rules (some of them also likely violations of tax laws Mr. Rangel helped to enact) is decided and meted out.  No doubt, Charlie has done some fine things for the people of New York over the years.  No doubt, he will again–if he is allowed to continue in office.  (His constituents just elected him to another term while the charges against him were pending, an interesting question addressed just below.)

          Also to be sure, with all his years of experience, there isn’t a rule that Charlie doesn’t know how…how should I put it…to wrangle… strangle…mangle.  Take your pick.  Look at the charges against him.  The former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the House watchdog of tax rules and abuse, “inadvertently” forgetting to report taxable income.  Right, he forgot the rules overseen by the Committee he chaired!  What else?  Sweetheart deals for his campaign machinery.  On and on.  Twelve charges; eleven convictions.  Even his fellow Democrats were afraid of the wrath of we the people not to vote to convict.

          Mr. Wrangle…er, Mr. Rangel…claims he was only convicted because he was denied his due process, he wasn’t present when he was tried and convicted.  Why was that?  Because he freely chose to walk out.  Why, so he could then claim the conviction was bogus.  Mr. Rangel says he spent $2 million in legal fees defending himself and was out of money.  Whose money?  His?  Really.  Do you think he actually spent $2 million of his own money, down to his last dollar such that he had no more left?  I can’t prove it wasn’t his own money, but if you think he would have spent his own money frivolously defending a case he had to know more than anyone was a loser, well, then, I have some beachfront property in Nebraska I’d like to sell you:)  Oh, and by the way, where did one serving in the House for the past 40 years come by $2 million in disposable income?

          According to the street wise Mr. Rangel, the only mistake he made was thinking his colleagues would never hold him accountable.  Only we the people are held accountable when we commit tax fraud by failing to report taxable income.  How many cases have we seen in the past two years of political representatives who have “forgotten” to pay their tax bills?  Any of them been held accountable?

          So, maybe we have to sympathize with Representative Rangel.  I refuse to believe that he didn’t know better, but I don’t doubt that he never thought anyone would rat him out and hold him accountable.

          Has there been a better example of why we need term limits.  Forty years and counting.  Way too long.  And we can’t leave it to the voters to decide this on a case by case basis.  Charlie has taken good care of his constituents.  They re-elected him with all of these charges in plain sight, and they’ll keep on doing it!  This is why we need term limits.  Whether Charlie should pack his bags and go home shouldn’t just be left to Charlie’s constituents because that sends a message to each and every one of our political representatives that all they have to is take care of the home crowd.

          If Charlie did the crime, he must do the time.  He needs more than a slap on the wrist.  He needs to be sent home.  He needs a time out, to take some time to think about what he did and why we the people deserve better from him, not just his constituents.  All of our political representatives need to see that they, too, will be held accountable.  And our political leaders must not breach their public trust by just giving Representative Rangel a little slap on the wrist–and a wink and a nod, business as usual.

          Remember, convicted on eleven separate offenses, not just one innocent, inadvertent moment.  His colleagues have unanimously found him guilty.  By definition, he did the crime.  Now he must do the time.  Now, because we the people, all of us, deserve better.  Now, the House must…dangle Rangel in the wind.

                In my June 30, 2010 blog entitled “A ’Truth in Politics’ Code and Commission for ‘We The People,’” I put forth the proposition that we need some kind of system to assure at least a minimum acceptable level of truth in politics.  I pointed out in particular the deceptive nature of advertising in connection with recent ballot propositions.

                The need is greater than ever.  In California, there is a ballot Proposition, Number 26, that would prohibit the California legislature from blatantly circumventing California’s long standing Proposition 13 limit on property tax increases without a two thirds vote of approval of we the people by frivolously calling the tax increase a “fee.”  A vote in favor of Proposition 26 on November 2 is a vote to stop California politicians from making this kind of end run on we the people.  A vote against Proposition 26 is a vote that politicians can circumvent the will of we the people with little more than a play on words. Because of the stranglehold control of the California legislature by the unions (see, for example, the July 4, 2010 blog of my colleague, Page Norman, discussing in part the excessive influence of public pensions), allowing the California legislature to to bypass the will of we the people is essentially allowing the unions to do so.  The unions have already all but destroyed the California economy.

                Illustrating how the unions are campaign advertising about Proposition 26 will best demonstrate this kind of abuse, and why we do indeed need some kind of truth in politics reform legislation.  The unions are presently flooding California radio stations with an advertisement advocating the defeat of Proposition 26 sponsored and underwritten by “Teachers, Firemen and Police [Unions!!!] Protecting Taxpayers”!  There is no constraint on what political proponents can call themselves, misleading as that may be.  There is also no apparent constraint on what the ads may say, or not say.

                So, this ad campaign, appealing to those against an increase in taxes, and purporting to counsel them on how to prevent such increases, does not explain to California taxpayers against such increases that a vote against Proposition 26 is actually a vote to allow the California legislature to raise taxes!  It would be one thing if the ad campaign argued honestly that such increases should be permitted, but it is quite another thing for the unions to use these ads to deceptively trick voters against such increases to vote in a way that will permit such increases!  This is out and out fraud.

               Similarly, it is outright fraud to suggest that those running this campaign are “teachers, firemen and police” and not merely the union leaders who control their unions.  We need laws—and a bipartisan commission to enforce such laws—to assure that such advertising clearly discloses just what votes for and against a ballot proposition mean and who are really behind such advertising.  Unless a meaningful, reliable formal vote of union membership has actually endorsed a position, its leaders should not be able to claim that its rank and file membership advocates such a position, especially in a way that implies a greater degree of support or opposition than is actually the case, and a matter of public record.

               Our politicians see this just like I do and should bring it to a halt without having to be told to do so.  However, in fear of large union membership voting numbers that can greatly influence whether or not they are re-elected, our political representatives just turn a blind eye and permit this kind of fraudulent advertising.  Acceptable everyday business as usual.  Union leadership owes no duty to we the people, but our political representatives do.  We the people must send them a message that this kind of behavior on their part will not be tolerated.  We must tell them this on November 2, and we must pressure them to enact laws to ensure truth in politics.

                Our political leaders are once again belatedly jumping on the bandwagon – following by reaction rather than leading by proaction.  Leave it to our political leaders to wait to act until we are already in crisis mode rather than acting in a timely mode to head off the crisis before it descended upon us, as obviously this one was going to do.

                To understand what all the fuss is, let’s begin with this lawyer’s “Foreclosure 101 for Dummies” course.

               Want to buy a Kindle from Amazon.com for $189? You need to save up the cash first because Amazon.com doesn’t allow you to make a down payment and pay the balance over time.  However, unless you’re Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, you don’t have a wad of dough lying around sufficient to pay cash to buy a house!  You make a “down payment” (a partial cash payment up front) and then pay the balance over time, usually 15, 20 or 30 years.  More precisely, you borrow the balance from a bank or other lender who pays that balance up front to the seller for you and then collects back that balance from you over time… its profit coming in the form of “interest” paid on that “principal” loan balance.

                But what if you fail to pay the balance?  More specifically, what if you miss one (or more) of the monthly payments of that principal and interest balance?  Generally, the lender has two options.

               He can sue you for the balance and get a court “judgment,” or “order,” that you owe the balance to the lender, little more than an affirmation of the “promissory note” you signed to begin with.  But what good is that judgment?  As the saying goes, you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip; if you don’t have the money to make your monthly payment, how is the lender going to be able to collect a court judgment from you for the entire balance?

              However, when the lender loaned you the balance, he obtained from you a “lien” on the house you used the loan (and your down payment) to purchase.  If you fail to make one or more of your promised payments, the lender, can “foreclose” on that lien—take the house from you and sell it to recover some or all of the loan balance you owe.

              There are generally two ways for your lender to “foreclose.”  He can foreclose in court.  In this case, he gets not only the house to sell, but if that sale doesn’t pay the full amount you owe the lender, he gets a judgment against you for the balance.  A “judicial” foreclosure is supervised by the court and assures you that the lender fully complies with all applicable laws to protect your interests.  This is why the lender can obtain a “deficiency” judgment against you for any balance still owing after the house is sold—because it was done under judicial supervision to assure no…hanky panky.  However, this judicial approach is not attractive to lenders because courts move very slowly and judicial proceedings are expensive, largely in the form of legal fees the lender must pay to my fellow lawyers.

              Another way the lender can foreclose is basically to do it on his own (!) without having to go to court.  “All” the lender has to do is follow a bunch of procedural or “statutory” rules in the state where the house is located.  In order to avoid judicial supervision of the sale, the lender generally has to give up the right to sue you for any balance still owing after the house is sold.  Nevertheless, because “statutory foreclosures” are very quick and avoid expensive legal fees, almost all foreclosures are done in this statutory manner rather than judicially.

              In a “normal” or healthy economy, you have a job, the value of your home increases from year to year and you are able to make your monthly payments.   You do so to protect the increasing profit or “equity” in your home.  As such, there are relatively few foreclosures going on and the present “system” is adequate to police the statutory foreclosures in order to prevent any lender abuse.

             However, in the present distressed economy—the worst that we have experienced since the great depression of the 1930s—record numbers of homeowners have lost their jobs and can’t make their monthly house payments.  Moreover, the value of many homes has declined to the point where there is no longer any profit in the house—and no longer any economic reason to continue making the payments because the loan amount is greater than the present value of the home.  So, loan defaults and resulting statutory foreclosures are occurring in record numbers.  Hundreds of thousands of statutory foreclosures have recently taken place and are now taking place.  The present system is simply not equipped to protect against lender abuse in these humongous numbers of statutory foreclosures.

             The predictable results are occurring in massive numbers.  Illicit lenders are cutting corners and violating the rights of “we the people” American homeowners in taking their homes away from them.  Honest lenders swamped by the amount of loan defaults and ill-equipped to handle these numbers of foreclosures are also cutting corners without even realizing it.  Either way, the crisis is upon us.  The rights of distressed homeowners are being abused in unimaginable numbers.  We all know what’s coming next:  Tons and tons of lawsuits by homeowners to recover their homes wrongfully taken from them.  Of course, the ones who will profit most from these lawsuits will be…you guessed it, the lawyers!

             The chaos here is not just for abused homeowners.  How about those who buy homes at foreclosure sales?  Are they getting good title to what they are buying?  Will they all of a sudden be sued and find out that they don’t own what they thought they bought?  Will they then have to sue the banks and lenders, and title insurance companies who “insured” their good title?  Will investors who thought their investment in the promissory notes was “secured” by liens on the underlying homes find out that their security is defective?  More lawsuits?  Lawsuits on top of lawsuits?  Except for the lawyers, potentially utter chaos.

             Was this really that hard to foresee?  Was this rocket science?  Where were our political representatives before these foreclosures started taking place in record numbers?  Why weren’t they updating our laws to provide adequate protections and procedures to prevent the current crisis?  The answer:  They’ve been too busy pointing the finger at one another and trying to make sure they are re-elected next month, and still have their jobs—the jobs they have not been doing.

             Under increasing pressure from we the people and the media pundits, and worried about class action lawsuits left and right, Bank of America and other lenders recently announced that they were suspending their foreclosures to be sure they are doing them correctly.  Barely one week later, Bank of America has now announced—surprise, surprise—not to worry, they have been foreclosing correctly after all!  Figured that out in a week, did they?  Even our political representatives aren’t buying that.  Now, they are beginning—a dollar short and a day late—to launch their own investigations.  All 50 states are now investigating (demonstrating how real this problem is, as distinguished from Bank of America that needed only one week to assure us all that there is no problem after all), and just yesterday, our federal government decided to investigate as well.  Aren’t we lucky!

             One can only hope that we the people will send a loud and clear message to our political representatives in the coming November elections – serve we the people and do your job well or…find that you too may be unemployed and looking for a job in this economy–you know, the economy that President Obama tells us is recovering so nicely.  Of course, our unemployed political leaders will still have their free pension plans and health care benefits, guaranted by we the people.

     Although he has never officially declared himself, at least some of those who are “close” to U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker say he is openly gay.  Judge Walker is the trial court judge who in a 136 page opinion just ruled that California Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages violates the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, void.  His ruling will undoubtedly be appealed to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it will likely be decided by Justice Anthony Kennedy in a 5-4 decision that could go either way.  Can you imagine, after millions of votes on the part of the California electorate, this decision will likely be made by…one person.

     To be sure, this is not a blog about whether gays should be permitted to marry…other gays.  (We haven’t seen any suggestions that gays shouldn’t be permitted to marry straights.)  Nor is this a blog about the correctness of Judge Walker’s decision.  Nor is this a blog about whether one person should be able to outvote the California electorate, which is indeed an interesting question.  What this is is a blog to remind us that we should not forget the political nature of our Judiciary–what Yale Constitutional Law Professor Alexander Bikel described, tongue in cheek, in his very thoughtful book of the same title, as the “Least Dangerous Branch.”

     There have been suggestions that Judge Walker should have recused (disqualified) himself from handling this case.  Ignoring the fact that Judge Walker has not yet been “convicted” of being a homosexual, if he should not have taken this case, then must female judges not take cases involving female litigants, etc?  Further, if homosexual judges couldn’t try this case, then who could?  Wouldn’t heterosexual judges have to be disqualified for the same reason?  Or do they get a special exemption from self-interest? 

     The question is whether judges must be disqualified because of possible self-interest?  And who gets to decide whether the interest exists–if it is not admitted?  We have procedures to seek disqualification of a judge.  Those procedures were not raised by either side in this case.  Can that issue still be raised now?  By whom?  Hard to say, but one thing is for sure:  the judicial process is clearly a political one.

     The very nature of of Judge Walker’s decision was also a political one, perhaps more political than judicial.  By all accounts, Judge Walker’s lengthy opinion was much more about societal facts than about the law.  Was Judge Walker reaching a legal decision or was he writing a socio-political brief in an attempt to influence our appellate courts?  Or was he writing a fact based opinion because he knows that appellate courts give more deference to the fact findings of trial courts than to their conclusions of law?  One should also not lose sight of the fact that Judge Walker tried to publicly televise his trial of Proposition 8–until he was shot down on that by the appellate system.

     Unless it’s just that California water again, or unless Judge Walker is merely looking to spawn a new career in Hollywood, his actions, and the form of his decision in this case, remind us of just how incredibly political our least dangerous judicial branch can be.  Least dangerous?  Where one person, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, accountable to no one, will likely decide whether the California electorate will be permitted to set the socio-political boundaries of the fundamental institution of marriage in the State of California.  How political will this ultimate judicial decision prove to be, which actually will end up deciding the socio-political boundaries of the fundamental institution of marriage across the entire United States?

“Advise and consent”?  You know, the U.S. Constitutional requirement.  Apparently not if President Obama has anything to say about it.  Wait a minute.  President Obama isn’t suppose to have anything to say about it. But he seems to be from the school that says actions speak louder than words.  Words?  Spell that…unreliable sound bites, if even that.

 In contrast to this constitutional premise that it is the President’s role to advise—recommend—and that is the “consent” of the legislative representatives of “we the people” who must approve, this President seems to think that it is for him not merely to advise, but also to…dictate.  Is this what he had in mind when he spoke of “change?”  One cannot help but wonder if this is what those who voted for the President thought was the “change” they would be getting?

 Let’s consider two recent Obama advise and consent examples:

 First, there was his “nomination” of Elena Kagan to be our next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.  To be clear, Ms. Kagan has a great mind.  She may become a great U.S. Supreme Court Justice.  But we won’t have so much as a clue before she is guaranteed perhaps the next 40 years on the U.S. Supreme Court (remember the appointment is for life and Ms. Kagan is only 50.)  We don’t have a clue because Ms. Kagan has no experience—or track record—as a judge.  And she wasn’t talking when she was examined by Congress.  Why should she?  She’s a shoe in so long as she doesn’t say anything foolish, or anything at all. 

Can’t help but wonder whether one who has never been a judge should start out on the U.S. Supreme Court?  Guess our President felt he couldn’t find any qualified judges to nominate.

 To be sure, there are those who support Ms. Kagan who would tell you that she will not be the first U.S. Supreme Court justice in the history of our country who had limited judicial experience before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  But that’s not the point of this blog; the issue is not whether Ms. Kagan will do a good job, but whether the advise and consent process of “we the people” has been honored.

 Second, there was President Obama’s middle of the night sneak appointment of Donald Berwick to single handedly run Medicare, which has a larger budget than even the Pentagon.  This wasn’t advise and consent.  This wasn’t even advise.  This was pure and simple… dictatorship.  President Obama made an indefensible end run on our constitution, relying on a Constitutional loophole meant to avoid long term delays in needed appointments.  But there was no delay here; Congress was simply out for a short  July 4 holiday.  Because the President feared what might happen if this appointment saw the light of day, and to be sure that he would have his way,  he side stepped our constitutional checks and balances princciple of advise and consent to put his choice in charge of Medicare without giving “we the people” any say in the matter.

If Dr. Berwick and his policies are what “we the people” want, then so be it, but this kind of Presidential behavior is downright improper, and scary.  This is how dictatorships are run.  It’s not supposed to be how the U.S. is run. 

 Why would President Obama behave this way?  Remember what the President said when he was stumping for his health care bill and the elderly questioned whether government beauracrats would be deciding who would receive medical care and who would not, who would be allowed to live and who would not?  Our President said that’s just bunk being spewed out by his opponents.  He said he would never be a party to that kind of treatment of our elderly.  Well, guess what, folks:  Dr. Berwick, who President Obama just single handedly crammed down our throats, has said that is precisely what he will do.  Check out Daniel Henninger’s collection of Dr. Berwick’s public remarks in the July 15 edition of the Wall Street Journal at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792704575367020548324914.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.

 Even the President’s own side of the aisle is blanching at this end run by our President.  Here’s what Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee had to say about the President’s behavior:  “Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power.”  Apparently President Obama doesn’t think this applies to him.

 Is this the “change” our President had in mind when he was campaigning for the presidency?  As Bob Dylan so aptly put it, “The times they are a changin’.”

Most of our blogs and comments are directed at the legislative and executive branches of our government.  In my day job, I have occasion to see a lot of politicians at work in the judicial branch of our governments, some elected, some appointed, but all politicians just the same.  Lest those politicians who wear the black robes feel they are exempt from accountability, they, too, are politicians deserving of occasional observation and comment.
 
Have you ever noticed the number of judges on the bench who think they are rather…perfect?  Incapable of making mistakes?  Beyond critique?  Maybe it’s just the unavoidable consequences of being in an artificial environment where so many of those who come before them feel obliged to…fawn all over them.  Whether they deserve it or not.

To be sure, there are many hard working, wonderful judges who do a great job.  Unfortunately, however, there are way too many who don’t, and who seem soooo unhappy doing what they are doing.  They ought either to improve their social graces, and modesty, or find another job.  Or be told to find another job.

Three thoughts for consideration:  

Maybe there ought to be term limits for judges so that they don’t become too complacent and presumptive about their roles.

Maybe judges ought to be required to take continuing education courses on good social manners and decorum, and to be reminded from time to time that they are a reflection on our system of justice and when they are mean spirited they do a great disservice to the credibility of, and respect for, that system.  Most other professionals are required to take continuing education courses to maintain their licenses.  Why not our judges?

You know those large companies that are starting to ask their custsomers to fill out short, simple two or three question surveys about their experience with various company employees?  GoDaddy is one such company in the internet services field.  Try calling in for customer support.  It’s incredibly good.  Know why?  Because every service call is followed by a two question survey about how the support employee performed.  That’s why.  This works–and it works well.  The service is terrific.  Maybe the participants in court hearings ought to be given simple surveys to fill out and remit, anonymously of course, on how their judge did in handling the matter at hand, in terms of competence, timeliness and politeness.  Computer evaluation can easily discount the views of the parties who lose.  They maybe disgruntled no matter what.  I suspect if such surveys impacted longevity and bonus treatment, many judges would do a much better job than they are doing today.

In 1968 (certainly before my time!), Congress enacted the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to protect borrowers by requiring lenders to properly disclose loan terms and costs. Much like lenders before TILA, I’m troubled by the willingness of our politicians to “stretch” the truth.

Have you ever noticed that even after you read the “pro” and “con” material of various ballot propositions, you still can’t tell whether a “yes” vote is for or against the issue?  In debates of our political candidates, have you ever noticed how the responses given have more to do with some statement the candidate wishes to make rather than answering the question that was asked?  Ever noticed a politician speaking out of both sides of his or her mouth?  It seems to me that this problem of lack of political integrity is becoming more and more prevalent.

This November, billionaire Republican Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO, wants to become the next governor of California.  According to her autobiography and her website, she’s big on integrity and hard on crime.  Given her many personal relationships with giant Wall Street investment banking firm Goldman Sachs, now being sued by the federal government for allegedly raiding the pocketbooks of everyday Americans, is Ms. Whitman possibly speaking out of both sides of her mouth?

Hard to know, but that’s precisely my point. How do we discourage those who seek our trust and would lead us from making misleading statements?

Why not take an approach similar to what Congress did when it enacted Truth in Lending?  Why not a “Truth in Politics” law?

Such a law could set forth a “Code of Honest Statements and Disclosure” required to be met by all current and would be governmental representatives.  The precise content of this Code is beyond the scope of this blog, but it’s not hard to imagine what it would champion–the very kinds of principles of integrity taught to us in our schools and in our churches and synagogues.

Such a law could also create and provide for a bipartisan “Commission” of independent professionals—perhaps retired judges—who could be given public resources to independently investigate and determine charges submitted to the Commission, and the authority to impose appropriate sanctions.

When lawyers abuse their clients, those clients have recourse to quasi-governmental organizations that regulate the legal profession.  If complaints are substantiated, lawyers can be reprimanded and repeat offenders can lose their license to practice law.  Offenders are often required to take ethics and anger management courses and to pass exams on those subjects in order to maintain their licenses.

Should politicians be any less accountable for their misstatements than lawyers, doctors, accountants and other entrusted professionals?

That all is fair in politics—much like love and war—has reached epidemic proportions, and shows no signs of abating.  Congress has procedures for regulating its own, but they don’t seem to be working.  Perhaps a “Truth in Politics” law would encourage Congress to meaningfully police its own before resort to outside monitors to do it for them.

I would like to know how Congress and our President would feel about this approach. Reluctance might demonstrate the very need for such a law.

Post a comment or email me to let me know what you think about this.