Must We Have the Nunn Bill? The Alternative of Judicial Councils of the Circuits (From Judicial Tenure and Discipline, 1979-80, P 327-356, 1980 - See NCJ-76303)

• NCJ Number: 76304
• Author(s): J C Wallace
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 30 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislative/Regulatory Material
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The merits of the Nunn bill are weighed against those inherent in the powers of Judicial Councils with regard to balancing both due process for litigants and the principle of judicial independence.

Abstract

Following an examination of the legislative history and the provisions of the Nunn bill, the purpose and powers of the Judicial Councils are analyzed, necessarily focusing on the Chandler and Imperial cases. The conclusion suggests some alternatives from which Congress could select if it becomes convinced that some additional type of judge control is necessary. The Nunn bill, introduced to the 94th Congress on March 7, 1975 as S. 111O, proposes a procedure in addition to impeachment for the retirement of disabled justices and judges of the United States whose conduct is or has been inconsistent with the good behavior required by article III, section 1 of the Constitution. Assuming the need for some type of added control of the judiciary and that Congress will act in response thereto, the Nunn bill should not be accepted as the sole available control method. The Judicial Councils of the circuits, provide another mechanism -- one that has been tried for more than 30 years with considerable success and which may strike a better balance between the need for an independent judiciary and the need for a court system that provides due process for litigants. The existence of the Judicial Council allows informal correction of unfortunate judicial practices without the spotlight of more formal action. Further, even now, the Judicial Council can relieve a judge of his/her duties if he/she is too physically or mentally handicapped to perform judicial responsibilities. Another alternative would be congressional modification of section 332 defining Judicial Council powers to provide more definition of, if not an increase in, the power of the Council to control judges. Judicial removal, such as is proposed in the Nunn bill, should have the lowest priority consideration because of its threat to judicial independence. Footnotes are provided.