The following information is from Judicial Watch.
The watchdog group recently shared the public ruling that was made by the Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit related to the misconduct complaints they co-filed with American First Legal against three federal judges in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
The complaints were filed in reference to standing orders that granted special preferences to lawyers appearing before them based on the lawyers’ race, ethnicity, or gender/sex.
This is a remarkable victory for judicial ethics, accountability, and transparency. The courts did the right thing in acknowledging and correcting their mistakes in a public way. We are hopeful that this quick and decisive result sends a signal to any other courts to end any ‘woke’ policies that perpetuate discrimination and undermine confidence in the fair administration of justice.
Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch President
The ruling notes:
In sum, all three judges have rescinded the standing orders that are the subject of these complaints. They also revised their case-management procedures, which now state only that the judges “welcome” or “encourage” oral argument by “relatively inexperienced attorneys.” The judges no longer have a policy of preferential treatment for new or inexperienced attorneys or any other particular group of lawyers; more specifically, the judges have eliminated their prior policies of preferential treatment based on a lawyer’s sex, gender, race, or ethnicity.
The Judicial Council also released letters from the each of the three judges.
Chief US District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel acknowledged she “chose the wrong means to accomplish my goal of expanding courtroom opportunities for young lawyers. As worded, the Standing Order created perceived preferences based on immutable characteristics. As such, my procedures have been revised, and the Standing Order eliminated.” (Judge Rosenstengel denied having made any decisions on the basis of any immutable characteristic.)
U.S. District Judge Staci M. Yandle wrote: “While I have never granted or denied oral argument to an attorney based on their sex or race, nor would I, I acknowledge that as worded, the procedure and Standing Order created a perception of preferences based on immutable characteristics.”
A third judge, U.S. District Court Judge David W. Dugan, noted he had actually changed the order at issue in 2022 and that he had “not on any occasion in my now 7 years on both the State and Federal benches granted, denied or even seriously entertained, access to oral argument specifically or to our court generally on the basis of race, sex, age or any immutable characteristic, nor will I in the future. Still, I recognize and acknowledge how such references could cause confusion for someone and, for that, I am regretful.”
Visit The Sharyl Attkisson Store today
Unique gifts for independent thinkers
Proceeds benefit independent journalism
Maybe I am too cynical but those mea culpas ring hollow as each assert the wording was not truly understood. One judge stated ” created perceived preferences”, meaning I did nothing wrong, you just looked at it sideways! Another states ‘not on any occasion’.
If those in positions of making decisions affecting others cannot accept their shortcomings, then we end up with a judicial system that metes out injustice!
The question still remains who appointed those judges and if the Senate had to vote on them what senator in his right mind would vote for them? Were they EEO “hires””? The fact that they originally supported that text marks them as unfit to be judges. And that they were given a “do over” is scandalous and their responses are transparently phony.
Did the Woke attorney get any preferences during the trial that favored the defendant to compensate for the Woke incompetence?