This is what integrity looks like.

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,168
3,645
136
This guy just cut off a big stream of revenue on principle.

I consider him a National Hero.


Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar

In a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts, he detailed why he’s lost faith in the court.


1584216911836.png

James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. He has appeared on briefs and petitions as part of the most prestigious association of attorneys in the country: the Supreme Court Bar. The lawyers admitted to practice before the high court enjoy preferred seating at arguments and access to the court library, and are deemed members of the legal elite. Above all, the bar stands as a sprawling national signifier that the work of the court, the legitimacy of the institution, and the business of justice is bolstered by tens of thousands of lawyers across the nation.

On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. In his letter, reprinted in full below, Dannenberg compares the current Supreme Court, with its boundless solicitude for the rights of the wealthy, the privileged, and the comfortable, to the court that ushered in the Lochner era in the early 20th century, a period of profound judicial activism that put a heavy thumb on the scale for big business, banking, and insurance interests, and ruled consistently against child labor, fair wages, and labor regulations.

The Chief Justice of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
March 11, 2020
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.
This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.
I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.
The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.
Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.
Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.
It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.
I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.
The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around.
I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.
Please remove my name from the rolls.
With deepest regret,
James Dannenberg
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
Every time I click to expand I get a refresh with click to expand. Can't read his letter
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,168
3,645
136
Every time I click to expand I get a refresh with click to expand. Can't read his letter

Hmm.. Here it is.

The Chief Justice of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
March 11, 2020

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.
This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.

I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.

The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst.

Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.

Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.

It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.

I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner. It still could become that of his revered fellow Justice John Harlan the elder, an honest conservative, but I doubt that it will. Feel free to prove me wrong.

The Supreme Court of the United States is respected when it wields authority and not mere power. As has often been said, you are infallible because you are final, but not the other way around.
I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.
Please remove my name from the rolls.
With deepest regret,
James Dannenberg
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,168
3,645
136
Political resignation from a fellow at the end of his career. A big statement at little or no personal cost. This is the very definition of an armchair hero.

In case you haven't been keeping up with current event, those appointments are lifetime.

You saying he was planning to die?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,057
136
In case you haven't been keeping up with current event, those appointments are lifetime.

You saying he was planning to die?
I'm saying he didn't sacrifice much. I'll go ahead and guess that the fellow has a pretty solid retirement income, and probably a respectable savings account. His resignation is a gesture, not a sacrifice.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
I have that same problem every time I click to expand anything. It scrolls to the top and unexpands it.
let me guess, mobile, safari?

Dear Esteemed P&N Participant,
If you read this far and are moved to respond to this browser problem here in this thread . . . DON'T. It is an off topic diversion and anyone responding further than has already occured below risks an infraction.

Your friend,
Perknose
Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
8,613
10,860
146
In case you haven't been keeping up with current event, those appointments are lifetime.

You saying he was planning to die?
He has to downplay the value of his action in order to lay doubt on its validity. Or something equally illogical. :rolleyes:
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
I think it's pretty clear that the courts need to be reformed and quickly. Hopefully Joe Biden will come around to that.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
Only a political revolution can correct the Supreme Court. I wouldn't look for that from Biden. Can't have the 1% get scared they will lose poser.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,284
5,057
136
He has to downplay the value of his action in order to lay doubt on its validity. Or something equally illogical. :rolleyes:
It's a protest that few will note and fewer will care about. It's an action without loss or consequence. If this triggers a landslide of resignations in a show of solidarity, I'll have a different opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,076
136
One resigned...yawn.
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
Political resignation from a fellow at the end of his career. A big statement at little or no personal cost. This is the very definition of an armchair hero.
Any of you care to take a stab at discussion of the content rather than simply quips which fall flat? (I have my doubts that you read it on its entirety)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
Nope, desktop, Chrome. Doesn't happen with Edge but I don't like that browser.

Damn. I have the problem on safari mobile, Chrome desktop works.
It sort of points to some cached javascript that needs to be refreshed then. Its not browser/version specific.
Clear your caches gentlemen and fire another shot :).
 

DaaQ

Golden Member
Dec 8, 2018
1,283
924
136
Every time I click to expand I get a refresh with click to expand. Can't read his letter
I have that same problem every time I click to expand anything. It scrolls to the top and unexpands it.
I have the same problem in Chrome on an S10
Nope, desktop, Chrome. Doesn't happen with Edge but I don't like that browser.
I only have it happen on mobile, on desktop Chrome it works properly, but haven't updated windows or chrome for over a month.
Mobile on my work tablet is S3 tab on Chrome. Updated.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
Political resignation from a fellow at the end of his career. A big statement at little or no personal cost. This is the very definition of an armchair hero.

And what would a person be called for baselessly attacking the man’s character without so much as to provide a single factual piece of evidence that supports your feelings?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
I applaud him. Maybe he would have stayed and fought the current nature of the court if this had happened 20 years ago, who knows.

Either way, I heard someone speaking a few days ago about folks running for political office and how for many of them their main focus is "protecting the trillions." Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, there are folks making trillions on both sides and any reform we are hoping for is unlikely to ever be realized if it jeopardizes those trillions.