WELCOME to the debut of “The Truth Is!”, a blog of reporting and commentary that aims to be informative, thoughtful and provocative. At least initially, the blog will have a strong heartland flavor by virtue of the connection of a number of us to Cowles family journalism. I am former editor of the Des Moines Register’s opinion pages. Another contributor, Michael Gartner, is former editor of the paper; he later served as president of NBC News. Another former Register editor who has agreed to contribute, Geneva Overholser, is director of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg school of journalism. Followers of the blog will have access also to the work of Herbert Strentz of Des Moines, a close Register and other newspaper watcher who once headed Drake University’s journalism school. Bill Leonard, a longtime Register editorial writer, will add insights.

“The Truth Is!” will be supervised by my daughter, Marcia Wolff, a communications lawyer for 20 years with Arnold and Porter (Washington, D.C.). Invaluable technical assistance in assembling and maintaining the blog is provided by my grandsons Julian Cranberg, a college first-year, and Daniel Wolff, a high school senior.

If you detect a whiff of nepotism in this operation, so be it. All of it is strictly a labor of love. —Gil Cranberg

Monday, July 1, 2013

Gilbert Cranberg: MINDLESS HIGH COURT SECRECY

Linda Greenhouse for years covered the U.S. Supreme Court knowledgeably for the New York Times. She still writes occasionally, and perceptively, about the court. Her advice to Times readers in the June 30 edition: “follow the docket.” Each case, she wrote, “is intended to accomplish something: to clarify the law, interpret an ambiguous statute, resolve conflicting decisions among the lower courts or…to change the status quo.”

In the high court’s most recent term, it decided 73 cases. Those were selected from 8,000 requests for review.  The votes of at least four justices are required for the high court to add a case to the docket. Despite its significance, how justices vote on whether to review a case is almost always shrouded in secrecy.

My guess is that the high court does it this way out of custom. Several years ago I wrote to each justice to inquire why they don’t disclose the reason when they decline to participate in a case. Six of the nine justices responded. The reasons they offered for their secrecy about recusal revealed that no deep-seated principles were at stake. For the most part, the reason they didn’t explain the basis for recusals was because that’s the way they and their colleagues usually did things. 

Their mindless custom had a serious consequence: it barred scrutiny of the extent to which the justices adhere to the ethics rules. Those rules are strict, prohibiting participation in a case if a justice has a financial interest, “however small “, in a party to the proceeding. When justices don’t disclose their votes on whether to add a case to the court’s docket, it becomes impossible to know whether a justice had a conflict of interest on some of those votes. 

Linda Greenhouse’s advice to “follow the docket” is sage. The Supreme Court now needs to make it possible to do that by fully disclosing how the justices vote on such a consequential court action as which cases to accept for review.

No comments: