Judge Posner Steps Down from 7th Circuit

[Lord Coke]

This is pretty unexpected. For those of you who don't know Posner is most likely the most influential judge outside of the Supreme Court. I am wondering if he has some health issues he is not disclosing because he just retired without any notice at all. I'll be curious to see who Trump replaces him with.

http://abc7chicago.com/politics/richard-posner-retiring-from-appeals-court-bench-in-chicago/2369453/

Richard Posner retiring from appeals court bench in Chicago

Email

Federal judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Appeals Court in Chicago.


Updated 1 hr 14 mins ago
CHICAGO --
U.S. Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner, whose acerbic wit and legal opinions made him a legend in legal circles, announced Friday that he is retiring.

Posner, 78, is stepping down after more than three decades on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Posner was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, and will leave the bench Saturday. He said in a statement that he has written more than 3,300 opinions during his career and is "proud to have promoted a pragmatic approach to judging." He added that "judicial opinions should be easy to understand and that judges should focus on the right and wrong in every case."

Born in New York, Posner earned a bachelor's degree in English from Yale University in 1959. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1962. Posner clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. and was an assistant to U.S. Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall before Marshall became a Supreme Court justice.

Posner has been an outspoken critic of the current state of the nation's high court, calling it "highly politicized."

"I think it's reached a real nadir," Posner said in a talk at a Chicago book store last year. "Probably only a couple of the justices, (Stephen) Breyer and (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg, are qualified. They're OK, they're not great."

He was equally free with his opinions issued from the bench. In one, annoyed with a lawyer who'd ducked one of his questions, Posner included a picture of a man with his head buried in the ground.

Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Diane Wood said in a statement Friday that Posner is one of the world's leading public intellectuals.

"His opinions have had an impact around the world," Wood said. "He has produced an unparalleled body of scholarship - books, articles and public commentary - covering virtually every legal topic that can be imagined."

Posner is also on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School. He said he looks forward to continuing to teach and publish.

The ABC7 I-Team reported last year that Judge Posner came under fire for his remarks about the U.S. Constitution. A day after the I-Team's report, Posner apologized.

 

[Andy Capp]

Interesting, yes, that's probably the best word for it.

 

[lecter]

Good, he's horrible

 

[Lord Coke]

Good, he's horrible

I didn't like how he made fun of Scalia after Scalia died. That was pretty tacky.

 

[Quipling]

He's been getting smacked around by his colleagues lately while sitting as a district court because of some pretty fundamental fuckups on his part.

There are also rumors that he's mad that other parts of the 7th circuit aren't being run to his satisfaction, which means that his colleagues have started to ignore his input on a lot. He's probably pissed too many of them off.

 

[RockstarChris]

 

[Trotsky]

Even as a leftist, I have immense respect for Posner and his doctrinal consistency in his use of law and economics. He was the last bastion of intelligent conservatism.

Good, he's horrible

He's the greatest jurist in the country, and that's almost universally agreed upon by the legal community. He's also the last arguably "conservative" US judge with any level of critical praise.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Posner a pro-choice Conservative or pro-Roe as established law Conservative? Is this why he wasn't nominated to SCOTUS by either Bush?

 

[lecter]

He's the greatest jurist in the country, and that's almost universally agreed upon by the legal community.

I'm aware that his intellectual work is well respected (and I'm not overly familiar with it and fairly uneducated as far as the law is concerned) but idc, he made absolutely horrible comments on issues like mass surveillance and the relationship between police and public etc
Personally, I don't want to see anybody with such braindead opinions on some of the more important issues of our society in any important position, no matter how cleverly he can defend his position

 

[Lord Coke]

He's been getting smacked around by his colleagues lately while sitting as a district court because of some pretty fundamental fuckups on his part.

There are also rumors that he's mad that other parts of the 7th circuit aren't being run to his satisfaction, which means that his colleagues have started to ignore his input on a lot. He's probably pissed too many of them off.

Do you have a source for this. I believe you but I'd like to read more about it

 

[Trotsky]

I'm aware that his intellectual work is well respected (and I'm not overly familiar with it and fairly uneducated as far as the law is concerned) but idc, he made absolutely horrible comments on issues like mass surveillance and the relationship between police and public etc
Personally, I don't want to see anybody with such braindead opinions on some of the more important issues of our society in any important position, no matter how clever he can defend his position

What opinions are you speaking of?

I think his judicial doctrine is kind of inhumane, but it's undeniably brilliant and logically consistent.

I'm kind of surprised you didn't bring up his baby market statements. That's usually what people bring up when they say they don't like him (even though the article is completely sound from an economic/distributional/value-maximization perspective

 

[Quipling]

Do you have a source for this. I believe you but I'd like to read more about it

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/44635-th-circuit-reverses-conviction-handed-down-by-posner is one of the cases I was thinking of. There's been one other in the last year with similar issues.

The rest is chambers gossip.

 

[lecter]

What opinions are you speaking of?

His comments on mass surveillance projects of government agencies & privacy came to mind when I read his name.
"I think privacy is actually overvalued. Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct. Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.

Congress should limit the NSA's use of the data it collects – for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies – but it shouldn't limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches. If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that's fine.

If someone drained my cell phone, they would find a picture of my cat, some phone numbers, some email addresses, some email text,” he said. “What’s the big deal?

I'm shocked at the thought that a company would be permitted to manufacture an electronic product that the government would not be able to search."

I'm sure his actual position is more sophisticated and he could write impressive essays to defend it, I actually read about his views in a book that put some of this stuff in perspective (Speaking out, Reflections on Law, Liberty, and Justice) and explained some arguments iirc but for me anybody who even remotely tries to make a "nothing to hide" argument has a screw loose.

When the 7th circuit decided on citizens' right to record interactions with law enforcement officers and rejected the claim that such recordings would violate the police officers' right to privacy ("Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in a public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?") he suddenly was worried about privacy and dissented.

 

[Lord Coke]

The only thing I really like that he has written about is him wanting to do away with the Blue Book. I highly agree that blue booking is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Madmick]

"I think it's reached a real nadir," Posner said in a talk at a Chicago book store last year. "Probably only a couple of the justices, (Stephen) Breyer and (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg, are qualified. They're OK, they're not great."

I was surprised to read this. I think Chief Justice Roberts has been simply fantastic since Bush appointed him. I expected to hate him, as some sort of archconservative judge legislating religious irrationalism, but instead, he's been incredibly well grounded, and quite moderate, IMO.

What does he have against Roberts? Is there some case or set of cases where Roberts authored opinions that has harmed his image among the legal community?

 

[Lord Coke]

I was surprised to read this. I think Chief Justice Roberts has been simply fantastic since Bush appointed him. I expected to hate him, as some sort of archconservative judge legislating religious irrationalism, but instead, he's been incredibly well grounded, and quite moderate, IMO.

What does he have against Roberts? Is there some case or set of cases where Roberts authored opinions that has harmed his image among the legal community?

He just does not think they are smart enough and that most of the Supreme Court is on the bench because they are people that played it safe to get a political appointment.

He does have a point. I watched a interview with Alito who freely conceded that he has shaped his whole life since age 20 towards being either a Circuit or Supreme Court judge so there are a lot of thing that he did not do out of cautions sake so that he could be vetted later.

 

[WiolentOne]

His comments on mass surveillance projects of government agencies & privacy came to mind when I read his name.
"I think privacy is actually overvalued. Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct. Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.

Congress should limit the NSA's use of the data it collects – for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies – but it shouldn't limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches. If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that's fine.

If someone drained my cell phone, they would find a picture of my cat, some phone numbers, some email addresses, some email text,” he said. “What’s the big deal?

I'm shocked at the thought that a company would be permitted to manufacture an electronic product that the government would not be able to search."

I'm sure his actual position is more sophisticated and he could write impressive essays to defend it, I actually read about his views in a book that put some of this stuff in perspective (Speaking out, Reflections on Law, Liberty, and Justice) and explained some arguments iirc but for me anybody who even remotely tries to make a "nothing to hide" argument has a screw loose.

When the 7th circuit decided on citizens' right to record interactions with law enforcement officers and rejected the claim that such recordings would violate the police officers' right to privacy ("Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in a public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?") he suddenly was worried about privacy and dissented.

Wow. Fuck that guy.

 

[Lord Coke]

I was surprised to read this. I think Chief Justice Roberts has been simply fantastic since Bush appointed him. I expected to hate him, as some sort of archconservative judge legislating religious irrationalism, but instead, he's been incredibly well grounded, and quite moderate, IMO.

What does he have against Roberts? Is there some case or set of cases where Roberts authored opinions that has harmed his image among the legal community?

This is the full video that these comments stem from. Its a hour interview so if you don't want to watch it all there is a synopsis as the second link.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?415557-1/william-domnarski-discusses-richard-posner


http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...awful_top_two_justices_are_okay_but_not_great

Posner later qualified his comments in a message to Above the Law.
Posner said his comment about only two justices being “qualified” wasn’t meant to suggest that the justices lack the necessary “paper credentials.”
His use of the word “qualified,” Posner said, “meant good enough to be a Supreme Court justice. There are something like 1.2 million American lawyers, some of whom are extremely smart, fair minded, experienced, etc. I sometimes ask myself: whether the nine current Supreme Court justices (I’m restoring Scalia to life for this purpose) are the nine best-qualified lawyers to be justices. Obviously not. Are they nine of the best 100? Obviously not. Nine of the best 1,000? I don’t think so. Nine of the best 10,000? I’ll give them that.”

 

[panamaican]

This is the full video that these comments stem from. Its a hour interview so if you don't want to watch it all there is a synopsis as the second link.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?415557-1/william-domnarski-discusses-richard-posner


http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...awful_top_two_justices_are_okay_but_not_great

I agree with him but, unfortunately, that's the President and Congress's fault and their unwillingness to nominate and confirm judges based on legal ability. I'd be curious to what extent cases like Roe v. Wade drove some of this.

 

[konagold]

Posner believes in a mandatory retirement age for all judges - he's mentioned 80 as a possibility. He's 78 himself. Maybe he's just trying to be consistent.