Thread: Hope and Change For the Court of Appeals

FOXNews.com - Hearing Delayed for Obama Judicial Nominee Who Supported Serial Killer

Hearing Delayed for Obama Judicial Nominee Who Supported Serial Killer
By Judson Berger

- FOXNews.com


The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting him as a judicial loose cannon and Republicans raised concerns about his alleged bias in favor of sex offenders.


The Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearing for a controversial Court of Appeals nominee after the panel received a letter from a home-state prosecutor blasting the candidate as a judicial loose cannon and after Republicans raised concerns about bias in favor of sex offenders.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny gained notoriety in 2005 for his role in trying to fight the execution of convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross, also known as The Roadside Strangler, whom Chatigny had described as a victim of his own "sexual sadism."

His conduct in that case, which included threatening to go after Ross' attorney's law license, as well as his ruling in 2001 against sex offender registries created under Megan's Law, has caused a commotion among Republicans on the judiciary panel.
"I've never seen conduct like this," said a Republican source. "I'm shocked that the White House vetted this guy ... and still put him up for a judgeship."

The nomination is relatively fresh. President Obama submitted his name Feb. 24 for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, calling him a "first-rate" legal expert and "faithful" public servant.

With the hearing originally set for Wednesday, Republicans led by their ranking member, Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said they wanted more time.

"Senator Sessions and the Judiciary Republicans have asked for a delay in light of the nominee's extremely lengthy record and the fact that he was brought up so unusually quickly," Sessions spokesman Stephen Miller said.

Behind the scenes, Republicans are taking a hard look at Chatigny's role in the Ross proceedings which they say could be disqualifying -- particularly on the Court of Appeals, the last line of review before the Supreme Court.

"You're letting him be the final review for a lot of people, and he's shown this alarming bias in sex crime cases," a GOP committee aide said.
Chatigny's office declined a request for comment. The White House could not be reached.

Chatigny stunned those involved in the serial killer case in early 2005 by pressuring Ross' attorney on a conference call to challenge his scheduled execution even though Ross had said he did not want to fight.
The judge had raised concerns about whether Ross was mentally unfit and whether prison isolation had led to despair -- at the time of the conference call, federal appeals courts had overturned two prior orders from him postponing the execution.

According to a transcript of that Jan. 28 call, the judge threatened to go after the law license of Ross' attorney, T.R. Paulding.
"So I warn you, Mr. Paulding, between now and whatever happens Sunday night, you better be prepared to live with yourself for the rest of your life," Chatigny said. "And you better be prepared to deal with me if in the wake of this an investigation is conducted and it turns out that what Lopez says and what this former program director says is true, because I'll have your law license."

Ramon Lopez was an inmate who had written a letter to Chatigny saying Ross had been brainwashed by mental health professionals.
Ross was convicted of killing four women but had confessed to killing eight, raping most of them. He was sentenced to death in 1987 and had been on death row nearly two decades when Chatigny engaged in the last-minute battle with others on the case.

On the conference call, the judge repeatedly stuck up for Ross, saying he suffered from "this affliction, this terrible disease" and suggesting Ross "may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row."
"Looking at the record in a light most favorable to Mr. Ross, he never should have been convicted," Chatigny said. "Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death because his sexual sadism, which was found by every single person who looked at him, is clearly a mitigating factor."

In the end, the execution was temporarily delayed and ultimately carried out. But in the aftermath, seven prosecutors from Connecticut filed a complaint against the judge with the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit. Among the complaints were that the judge had threatened Paulding and that he had not disclosed that in 1992 he filed an application to file a legal brief in support of Ross' appeal -- though the judge never ended up filing that brief. He was later cleared of misconduct.

This year, in a letter dated March 5 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Sessions, one of those prosecutors wrote that Chatigny's actions in the run-up to the execution "call into question his suitability" for the Court of Appeals seat.

"Judge Chatigny completely abandoned the role of neutral and detached magistrate and instead became an advocate for the position held by the parties who were seeking to stop the execution of Michael Ross," wrote Michael O'Hare, an assistant state's attorney in Connecticut. He described the Jan. 28 conference call as a "tirade" in which the judge was "threatening and intimidating" others.

After receiving the letter, as well as a request from committee Republicans to postpone, Leahy canceled the Wednesday hearing. According to Leahy's office, the hearing was postponed because of the GOP request and will be held at some point, though it's not clear when.
A Democratic committee aide said Leahy was "happy to accommodate" the Republicans' request. The aide did not discuss whether Democrats share the Republicans' concerns.

"The information related to that case has been in the public domain for quite some time, so it's not like something that's been kept from public view. ... This is why we have nomination hearings," the aide said.
A few years before the standoff over the execution, Chatigny had also issued a ruling that Connecticut's sex offender registry was not constitutional. Though the federal appeals court upheld the ruling, it was later unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court.

The judge does have his supporters. Connecticut Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman issued a joint statement late last month saying Chatigny had "consistently demonstrated his impressive legal abilities and a profound commitment to the rule of law."

They called him an "outstanding addition" to the Court of Appeals and pledged to work toward his "swift confirmation" through the Senate.

Originally Posted by maxpro2

Politics is so retarded. Fuck the Republicans and fuck the Democrats for trying to turn everything into a political issue.


Oh no! He ruled a certain way and his decision was reversed! WHAT A BAD JUDGE!

Give me a fucking break!
1) Judges are overruled all the time.
2) If you have ever researched sex offender laws, you would see how they should be unconstitutional. To give you all the simple version, these laws are basically a second lifelong punishment for a crime (the first being the jail sentence), with restrictions on where you can live and where you can work for your whole life. Say an offender works in a building in the city, and a day care opens up on a different floor in the same building or even across the street... the offender would basically lose his job due to the proximity restrictions of the sex offender laws. These laws become more liberal because no one wants a sex offender in their neighborhood, and slowly but surely the restricted zones expand, ultimately banishing them from their cities/towns (or re-imprisonment if they do not move). This virtual banishment increases recidivism rates.

Oh, also remember that "sex offender" does not necessarily mean there was a minor involved. The term sex offender is a broad one. So even though many sex offenders have done nothing to minors and have no harmed minors in any way, they are banned from being around schools or daycare centers.

So say, for example, your ex-girlfriend hates your guts and claims you raped her. You are both 30. You are convicted, and are now a sex offender.

In some states, urinating in public will make you a sex offender! Google it if you don't believe. Here's one account: Nobody's Business: Florida Banishes Man for Public Urination

My point is this: sex offender laws are fucked up. Many need revision. No politician will ever say this though, as it is political suicide. I can easily see how a judge can find them to be unconstitutional, and the fact that he was overruled should not be used politically.


In 2010, I can't imagine how you can think that a lie detector test is an accurate tool.


Are you SERIOUS??? This is Copyright law.

I could make a piece of shit drawing, register a copyright for it, and if you used my drawing, sue you for at least $750.

Obama's Department of Justice did not create the Copyright Act. Congress did. Write to your Congressman and bitch, but blaming Obama's administration is SO EXTREMELY IGNORANT that it hurts my brain.

Grown men who fuck little girls for fun should be lucky they were allowed to live not complaining about registering every so often.
Rapists get convicted and spend a few years in jail. The little girl that gets rapped has to live with it their whole life, so why shouldn't they? If you ask me it's unfair that they don't hand out the death penalty for it.

I'm not saying that some of the laws need to be revised to better filter the real sickos and the guys who just like to make coffee in the nude but if you fuck little kids you should be slaughtered.