Here's another story on the greatest hits of the broken New York State Senate. A bill in Albany that would guarantee that small court judges were, you know, actual judges is stuck in the endless gridlock of Albany. Facing the wrath of special interest groups, this common sense bill is going nowhere fast.
The most ambitious efforts in decades to reform New York State's vast network of small-town courts - where sessions can be held in a garage, and where more than 1,450 judges who are not lawyers conduct trials - have stalled in Albany. Even a seemingly modest compromise, one that would allow a defendant to request that the judge be a lawyer, seems doomed, its sponsor says.
Just a few years ago, critics of the courts said major changes seemed possible after nearly 100 years of failed efforts. The Legislature and a judicial commission held hearings, and state court officials instituted reforms.
But efforts toward more extensive changes have recently slowed to a crawl. The seemingly simple idea that the local justices should have law degrees went nowhere. Now, even a compromise legislative proposal that would give people facing jail the option of having their cases transferred to a judge who is a lawyer is failing in Albany.
The proposal has been angrily opposed by the justices, who, in addition to conducting trials, also rule on search warrants and send people to jail. But it has also been opposed, though more quietly, by the state's top court administrators, who often walk a tightrope as they work to keep the courts running. A sponsor, Assemblyman Daniel J. O'Donnell, a Manhattan Democrat, said it was unlikely to pass this year. He said colleagues had told him that it threatened the stature of the justices, who are often tightly woven into local politics.
As a law student myself, I find it hard to believe that we have a system built by lawyers where a non-lawyer could actually be a judge. Historically it may have made sense to let small town courts run by non-legal personnel. But the 20th century saw an explosion in the legal profession and there's no shortage of lawyers to act as court officials. The entire point of the legal profession is to train a set of professionals on the rights and responsibilities of the public. We the people deserve to have well-trained judges who understand the law as the arbiters of justice.
Of course even if you oppose the proposal, the way this specific action is being dealt with by Albany is revealing about the new order. Remember the days when Albany was run by three men in a room and whatever the leader of each chamber wanted would fly through the chamber? Those days are over.
The sponsor of the bill in the State Senate, John L. Sampson of Brooklyn, the Democratic leader, said in an interview that he hoped to persuade Judge Pfau and the state's current chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, to change their minds. He said some defendants had clearly been subjected to improper treatment in the town and village courts.
But if the court officials continue to oppose the proposal that came out of their own commission, its future is not bright.
"I will not do it unless they sign on to it," Mr. Sampson said, "because it does need to be implemented."
(emphasis added)
Wow. John Sampson is the "leader" of the Senate and he's taking his marching orders from the state judiciary? How on earth do we expect to get anything passed through this Senate if every bill is subject to the will of the special interest under attack?
Yikes. Our State Senate needs new blood . |
