JUDICIAL FITNESS 89-2 HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN JUDICIAL MACHINERY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON PROCEDURES FOR THE REMOVAL, RETIREMENT, AND 60-141 FEBRUARY 15, 1966 Part I Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas EDWARD V. LONG, Missouri EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts BIRCH BAYH, Indiana QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland GEORGE A. SMATHERS, Florida EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN JUDICIAL MACHINERY JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland, Chairman JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania WILLIAM T. FINLEY, Jr., Chief Counsel II CONTENTS Page JUDICIAL FITNESS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN JUDICIAL MACHINERY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 6226, New Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph D. Tydings (chairmant of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Tydings and Hart. Also present: William T. Finley, Jr., chief counsel; Peter J. Rothenberg, deputy counsel; M. Albert Figinski, deputy counsel; Rex L. Sturm, minority counsel; and Jay Gooselaw, clerk. Senator TYDINGS. The subcommittee will come to order. STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE Senator TYDINGS. Today, the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery holds its initial session of hearings on the availability of and need for procedures to govern the removal, retirement, and disciplining of unfit Federal judges. An inquiry of this nature has been contemplated for several months, indeed since October, when I made a speech on the floor of the Senate, and today's session will be only the first step in a lengthy and careful examination, which we think will take some time. The purpose of these hearings is to determine whether the Federal Judiciary has the necessary statutory tools to police its own house fairly and efficiently, and, if not, to explore the possibility of drafting and introducing remedial legislation. These hearings do not indicate any lack of confidence in the Federal bench. Indeed, the subcommittee recognizes that our Federal judiciary, as a whole, is characterized by men of remarkable integrity and ability. We believe that, given the proper tools, the judiciary has the capacity to handle the problems created by the tiny handful of judges who, because of physical or mental disability, senility, alcoholism, laziness, or misfeasance, do immeasurable harm to the efficient administration of justice. As a matter of fact, this inquiry was itself suggested to me by several very distinguished members of the Federal judiciary. Anyone even casually familiar with the Federal courts knows that their dockets are crowded and becoming more so as the amount of judicial business increases every year. The situation is already critical. In certain districts the average litigant may wait for more than 3 years after joinder of issue before coming to trial. This is not merely a matter of administrative concern, for justice delayed 1 |