Guido Calabresi (cont'd)

Thirdly, Judge Calabresi outlined the role of federalism and how it troubled him. He stated that decisions are being taken from the federal courts, which he defined as relatively independent, to state courts whose judges are elected by a majority. Judges who are dependent on the election process
may be less likely to make waves in their decision-making because they want to retain their position.

Fourthly, with regard to appeals, Congress has given us instructions that prisoners must exhaust every opportunity to remedy their situation before coming to the courts. So fact-finding is done by prison officials, who “are subject to pressures that we (the Appeals Court) are not,” rather than by independent courts.

Finally, Judge Calabresi noted that courts have become career ladders for jurists aspiring to higher benches. “Most judges on the Appeals Court have come from district or state courts. If judges think about promotion they’re going to be very careful about making waves. If they are afraid of making decisions because it may hurt their chances for promotion, this affects an independent judiciary.” Also, in this day and age, judges have become dependent on administrative support to handle the heavy docket of cases they carry. “This dependency on those who decide their budgets is circular. It doesn’t impact the decisions they’ve made, but it does whittle away at the judge’s independence.” In conclusion, Judge Calabresi made an analogy to the Victorian-era houses that one-by-one were torn down in New Haven, Connecticut where he lives. It was not until the sum total of the destruction was seen that New Haven realized what was lost. Now only two Victorian houses remain. As with an independent judiciary, “you put these reasons together and you see a significant change in the judiciary.”