I continue to get private correspondence about the Second Circuit’s removal of Judge Shira Scheindlin from the stop-and-frisk cases. What’s so striking to me is the absence of reasoned argument about the contents of the Neumeister article. I’ve yet to see anyone dispute—let alone cogently dispute—that if the article is accurate the Judge was way out of bounds. If the article was accurate, or even close to accurate, the removal of Judge Scheindlin is like the earlier removals of the judges in the Wichita abortion protest case and the DOJ case against Microsoft. In each case, the Judge stepped out on the field of play to defend themselves on the merits in the news media.
Disappointingly, the New York Times’s “Room for Debate” features four debaters who take the same side of the issue and only one of whom (Deborah Rhode) addresses the Neumeister article. On that issue Professor Rhode simply says that if Judge Scheindlin’s account of the interview is correct then it would not be grounds for removal. The other three entries struck me as weak, as did this posting by a senior judge, because they don't come to grips with the most difficult facts for Judge Scheindlin. Weakest of all have been the many reactions suggesting that the ruling is problematic because one side of the underlying policy debate will be unhappy with it.
UPDATE: The New York Times feature has a 5th opinion (which was added later or which I missed the first time). It's from Professor Charles Ogletree, is titled, "Breaking the Rules for Ethical Reasons," and concludes, "The lesson here is that sometimes the ethical path for judges is to break the rules so that important issues can be discussed and debated to enhance our understanding of racial justice in America."