For those who hope the facts and law will decide the constitutionality of the NYPD’s stop-question-and-frisk program, presiding Judge Shira Scheindlin is sending the world a message: Not in my court.
Her most recent signal comes in the form of three interviews the judge granted to the AP, The New Yorker and the New York Law Journal. Even though Scheindlin doesn’t directly comment on the case, it’s extraordinary for a judge to give interviews that skate so close to the issues involved.
Seems the judge is sensitive about “below the belt” and “disgraceful” suggestions she’s prejudged the case. She also denies she’s a judicial activist. But she sure has a funny way of advancing her argument.
She rejoices, for example, when “there is no precedent that constrains you and you can really strike out and write what you think is the right answer.” State judges she dismisses as too “fearful” or wanting a “promotion.” And many federal judges are “more cautious than they should be.”
No one would accuse Scheindlin of caution. From the start of this trial, she hasn’t been shy about letting the city know how dubious she is about police judgment.
As one of her ex-law clerks told The New Yorker: “What you have to remember about the judge is that she thinks cops lie.”
Which brings to mind her colleague, Judge Nicholas Garaufis. For years, Garaufis has been trying to remake the FDNY according to his own racial formulas. But he was just slapped down by a US Court of Appeals, which found that an objective observer would have reason to question “the judge’s impartiality” in assessing evidence.
What would an objective observer say about Judge Scheindlin?