Pataki Got Low Marks For Judicial Diversity

On the front page of today’s New York Law Journal is a story about the 58 Supreme Court Justices that former New York Gov. George Pataki elevated to the four appellate divisions, New York’s intermediate appellate courts.

Of the 58, a whopping 83 percent were white men. Two were black, two were Hispanic and eight were women (one of whom is black). Pataki was also criticized for going outside the jurisdictions of the two New York City departments (1st and 2nd Appellate Divisions) in order to find his judges, instead of elevating Supreme Court justices from the area.

While the appointed judges were naturally conservative, given that Pataki is Republican, the article doesn’t criticize any of the judges based on lack of intelligence or seriousness.

I had posted just yesterday that one of the first executive orders Gov. Eliot Spitzer signed had to do with new judicial screening committees, and that they seemed to be designed to remove some of the political baggage that has haunted judicial selections in the past. I would guess that these screening committees, which will be bi-partisan, will put a focus on diversity that the Pataki administration lacked.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Spitzer Advocates for Judicial Reform in New York
  2. New York Near Deal on Judicial Selections?
  3. Spitzer Urges Constitutional Amendments for Judicial Reform
  4. Wachtell and Judicial Ethical Violations in New York’s Judicial Pay Raise Suit?
  5. New York’s Chief Judge Kaye Finally Brings Suit for Judicial Pay Raises

Tags:

January 3, 2007 · No Comments ·

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.