Imagine if federal Judge Shira Scheindlin had ripped off an orphan’s inheritance, or pilfered cash from the courthouse cafeteria. She’d be bounced from the bench in a New York minute and face a criminal rap, too.
Yet she did something far worse by corrupting the justice system and smearing the Police Department during the mayoral race, and all she gets is an embarrassing rebuke. Her punishment ought to fit her crime.
Scheindlin’s conduct on stop-and-frisk was so blatantly biased that her August ruling was anti-climactic. The only suspense involved her “remedies,” including a monitor, which she discussed before she announced her decision.
Hey, let’s have a trial before we hang the NYPD.
By booting her from the case and blocking her cockeyed orders, the appellate panel stops the damage. But it can’t turn back the clock on a campaign where she fanned the flames of anti-police ignorance and boosted Bill de Blasio, the loudest voice in the pack.
Scheindlin’s corruption started in 2007, when she encouraged lawyers in another case to file a suit on stop-and-frisk. “Why don’t you bring a lawsuit?” she said. “You can certainly mark it as related.”
That meant she would get the case. Weeks later, the lawsuit was filed and, presto — it landed in her courtroom.
Her scam was only beginning. The nine-week trial ran through last spring and mocked fairness as Scheindlin was both judge and jury. She interrupted witnesses to ask questions, creating a record she could cite to rationalize her ruling. She gave media interviews — an ethical no-no.
Most appalling was the “expert” testimony she embraced. On the sketchy evidence that a mere 10 police stops over nearly a decade were improper, she leaped to find that more than 4 million stops could have been tainted.
Meanwhile, she refused to hear testimony showing that stop-and-frisk helped catch criminals and drive crime to record lows, saying that was beside the point.
Indeed it was — if her point was to handcuff cops and elect de Blasio. Consider the impact on the campaign.
Quinnipiac polls had found New Yorkers almost evenly split on stop-and-frisk. In May of 2013, for example, 46 percent approved and 49 percent disapproved.
That poll found Christine Quinn leading the Democratic field with 25 percent, with de Blasio tied for third at 10 percent. Holding crime down was a major topic, with Quinn promising to keep Ray Kelly as commissioner and Bill Thompson promising to hire 2,000 more cops. De Blasio’s rancid attacks on Kelly were not paying dividends — yet.
By late summer, the script was flipped. Constant headlines about Scheindlin’s expected ruling, and a suspect brief filed by US Attorney General Eric Holder supporting a monitor, kept the anti-cop pot boiling. So did two bills moving through the City Council. One would create an inspector general, and the other would ban racial profiling, which already was illegal. Mayor Bloomberg denounced both and threatened vetoes.
On Aug. 12, Scheindlin issued her ruling, which, no surprise, included a monitor to supervise the NYPD. Ten days later, the council overrode the mayor’s veto on both bills.
The frenzy amplified de Blasio’s attacks on cops and he suddenly surged into the lead for the first time. He stood at 30 percent, with Quinn at 24 as Anthony Weiner collapsed amid a new sexting scandal.
The public mood on the police also shifted. Disapproval of stop-and-frisk soared to 60 percent and approval fell to 31 percent. Among those who disapproved, the largest chunk, 34 percent, favored de Blasio.
In the August poll’s press release, Quinnipiac’s Mickey Carroll described the shake-up: “Two related issues which seem to resonate with Democratic voters are stop-and-frisk and the creation of an inspector general for the New York Police Department. US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin did her part for the voters by appointing a federal monitor for the NYPD.”
From then on, de Blasio often cited Scheindlin’s ruling to justify his anti-police agenda and never trailed again. Quinn and Thompson started aping his attacks, but de Blasio won the Sept. 10th primary with 40 percent, avoiding a runoff.
The drama over, Quinnipiac polls soon started reverting to their longtime balance on stop-and-frisk. In late October, 48 percent found its use excessive, while 45 percent saw it as acceptable. By a margin of 2 to 1, voters now say keeping crime low is more important than changing stop-and-frisk.
The election is Tuesday, but there is no need to guess how Scheindlin will vote. She already did.
Obama’s Pants on fire
A friend writes: “I think Bambi’s ‘If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan’ ranks right up there with, ‘Read my lips, no new taxes,’ and, ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman,’ as unacceptable presidential lies of our time.”
That observation reveals Obama’s challenge. George H.W. Bush lost after breaking his tax pledge, and Bill Clinton survived the stain of Monica but never escaped it. Obama won’t be on the ballot, but his second term is sinking like a stone.
His approval rating is 42 percent and probably hasn’t bottomed out. The ObamaCare Web site is a clunker, but worse news will come when it gets fixed. There will be more and more “ObamaCare losers,” meaning people who lose their insurance because of his lie and his law. Their stories of higher prices, if they find insurance, will reinforce negative opinion.
That will cause a stampede of Democrats up for re-election to run from him. Self-preservation being the prime political instinct, Obama could find himself a very lonely man.
No problem for him — he doesn’t like other pols anyway. In fact, he doesn’t like anybody, except the messiah in the mirror.
Yes, Prez eyed the ‘heave-Joe’
About reports that President Obama considered putting Hillary Clinton on his re-election ticket and dumping Joe Biden — feel free to ignore the White House denials. Of course he considered it.
As I wrote then, Obama had to think about a switch as the economy sank and his polls followed. It turns out he got all the help he needed from Mitt Romney.
Hardly worth the gamble
It’s almost impossible to find anyone who truly believes gambling is absolutely a good thing. Yet with Gov. Cuomo putting lipstick on the pig with promises about more money for schools, lower taxes and more jobs, a proposition on Tuesday’s ballot to allow casinos in New York stands a good chance of passing.
It won’t get my vote because there are better ways to get the same benefits. Fracking, for instance, would create more higher-paying jobs as well as more state revenues, without the problems of addiction and crime that trail casinos.
And what if the state made itself attractive by cutting the tax burden? Yes, just imagine — because that’s all we can do.