The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit embarrassed itself again on Wednesday by reaffirming a hasty and ill-considered decision last month to remove the presiding judge from the court battle over New York City's stop-and-frisk program and to stay her remedies for the policy's civil rights violations.
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
The new ruling tries to appear less highhanded than the first but sticks by the unconvincing claim that the panel had no choice but to disqualify Judge Shira Scheindlin for comments she made in court and in press interviews. It said she gave "the appearance" of impartiality, even though the city never challenged her fairness during five long years of litigation. The panel undercut its own argument by describing her as a "distinguished jurist" and making clear that she was not guilty of judicial misconduct or ethics violations.
From the very beginning, the appeals court approached this matter as it might some arcane dispute over patent law — when in fact it is one of the most important civil rights cases to be heard in New York in decades. The case turned on data showing that millions of people were stopped on the street — mostly young black and Hispanic men — and that nearly 90 percent had broken no law.
Judge Scheindlin found in Floyd v. City of New York that the tactics underlying the program violated the civil rights of minority citizens. That seemed unassailably just, given the data presented at trial. The ruling also vindicated the anger and discontent of law-abiding citizens who had become fearful of even leaving their homes lest they encounter police officers.
The appeals panel said Judge Scheindlin improperly invited the plaintiffs to file the Floyd case and improperly used the assignment process that had led to her presiding over three related cases. But before taking action in a complex and interlocking set of cases like these, the panel should have invited both sides into the court to determine what actually happened. Instead, it issued a terse ruling that failed to adequately explain its actions and seemed almost indifferent to the great significance of the case.
Judge Scheindlin felt ambushed, and petitioned the court for the opportunity to defend herself. This week's ruling denied that motion and also backed away from some of the serious charges that were implied in the earlier ruling. And by finding no actual misconduct by the judge, the appeals court seemed to signal to the city that there are no grounds to vacate Judge Scheindlin's decisions.
This suggests that the fate of stop-and-frisk will be left up to the incoming mayor, Bill de Blasio, who has pledged to reform the program. But that should not be the end of the matter, given that citizens in New York are being denied the civil rights protections that Judge Scheindlin imposed and that they deserve. The full court should review and reverse the three-judge panel's ruling.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Editorial: The Stop-and-Frisk Case Takes Another Turn
Dengan url
http://opinimasyarakota.blogspot.com/2013/11/editorial-stop-and-frisk-case-takes.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Editorial: The Stop-and-Frisk Case Takes Another Turn
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Editorial: The Stop-and-Frisk Case Takes Another Turn
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar