More Top Picks Best Harmonicas For Beginners
player ready...There are many neat perks enjoyed by a federal judge. The pay is good, the hours are short, and it’s a lifetime job.
Unlike, say, a congressman who must run for re-election every two years, a federal judge never goes before the voters. They are appointed, most through political clout.
And as a Chicago criminal lawyer once told me: “A federal judge is like the captain of a ship. In his courtroom he is all-powerful.”
We saw an example of that power this week when a federal judge in Washington sentenced Dan Rostenkowski to 17 months in prison.
Although I believe the prosecution of Rostenkowski was overly zealous and politically motivated, I can’t quarrel with the sentence, since Rostenkowski agreed to it by pleading guilty to two cheap charges in a plea-bargain deal.
And it was the job of Judge Norma Holloway Johnson to sentence Rostenkowski.
Let’s consider the setting. Standing before her was a 68-year-old man who had spent almost four decades as a member of Congress, a very tough arena filled with many smart, shrewd politicians in both parties.
During those 30-plus years he had two major accomplishments:
1. He did a lot for Chicago, his Northwest Side district and the rest of the state. He was the guy governors and mayors called when they needed something Washington had to spare. A lot of ordinary people have jobs in this city and state because Rostenkowski knew how to get a share of the so-called federal pork. Had he chosen to run, he could have been mayor of Chicago.
2. He became chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which made him the most influential member of Congress Chicago has ever sent to Washington. And, some scholars say, one of the most significant congressmen of this century.
So like him or not, as a congressman Rostenkowski was not exactly chopped liver.
Now let us consider what Judge Norma Johnson had to say to Rostenkowski in sentencing him.
“You shamelessly abused your position. When I think of your case . . . the one word or the one phrase that comes to my mind is `betrayal of trust.’ “
And she wound up her tongue-lashing by saying that Rostenkowski would have to live the rest of his life under the burden of “public disgrace.”
She could say these things–effectively pouring salt into a gaping wound–because she is a federal judge.
And if a federal judge decides to declare that a guy is going to spend the rest of his life bearing the burden of “public disgrace,” there’s nothing a guy can do but stand there and look embarrassed while an army of reporters takes notes. It’s her courtroom and she is all-powerful.
That seems a bit unfair. If she is going to brand him as a foul fellow who is going to live the rest of his life in “public disgrace,” he should be able to say a few things himself.
In Rostenkowski’s case, he might have said something like this:
“OK, your honor, I guess I goofed up by contemporary standards. But it’s not like I blew up a building or murdered my wife.
“And I didn’t play grab-butt with any of my female employees. I’d hate to think what you’d say if I did THAT!
“But, no, you are wrong. I am not going to live the rest of my life in disgrace, and it is rather arrogant of you to say such a thing.
“When I finish this sentence–satisfying a voracious federal prosecutor and this court–I will return to Chicago where I have many friends and supporters who appreciate and respect what I’ve done during the past 37 years. Not to mention several ex-presidents who also think kindly of my efforts.
“Whether you know it or not, that isn’t bad for a Polish kid from the Northwest Side. So I won’t apologize for my career.
More Top Picks Best Dining Tables
“And speaking of careers, I’ve looked up some of the details of yours. Not bad, but nothing for the history books, either.
“I note that after you finished law school, you didn’t spend much time out there hustling as a private lawyer.
“No, as quick as you could, you landed a job with the Justice Department. And you’ve been on the federal payroll as a government lawyer or a judge ever since–what, about 33 years?
“I also note that in evaluating you, some lawyers say you don’t work too hard, that getting you to rule on their motions is like pulling a tooth.
“Believe me, that’s not the way it was in my job. Just look at the lines in my face. Every two years, an election. In between, satisfying this pressure group and that pressure group. You ever try to write tax laws that won’t get every one teed off at you?
“No, you haven’t. What you have done is build a judicial record that–based on what the lawyers who appear in your court say–could be described as mediocre.
“So while you might lambaste me for doing things that congressmen used to routinely do, and describe me as some sort of political crumb-bum, at least I was not a mediocre crumb-bum.
“In conclusion, your honor, I would like to point out that the black robe you wear does not make you God. It means that you are just a lawyer who got politically lucky.”
But if he said that, he might have been given 17 years instead of 17 months. In a federal courtroom, it is better to quit while you’re behind.