The tempest has tempered a bit. [The phone inquiries subsided by noon today.] What a difference a day makes.
But the serious considerations, of course, continue. Let's hope that the energy that was displayed this week--both heat and light--will somehow be converted into real efforts to study and improve the Court of Appeals selection system. Although criticism of the system has been leveled in past years, some of it quite pointed and harsh (and oftentimes by me), the response from bench and bar has typically been nonsensical puffery. You know: how wonderfully the system is working and how magnificent the Court of Appeals has been as a result. Those who follow the court and the selection process closely know that the truth is far less positive than that.
But with the hope that this week's political brouhaha about the current list will actually instigate a genuine examination, followed by some genuine proposals, genuinely intended to change the system for the better--here's a continuation of the discussion began in yesterday's post. It's really just a continuation, in turn, of discussions that have and will be posted on the New York Court Watcher about the Court of Appeals, about how its judges are chosen, about the judges themselves, about their decisions, etc., etc., about New York's highest court.
Yesterday's post dealt with...
[Sorry, but a pressing matter calls me away. This post will continue on my return.]
