Opinion

Blind justice

Lady Justice is famously depicted blindfolded. So why is the Center for Constitutional Rights calling on its allies to “pack the court” for a hearing on stop-and-frisk?

Good question. At 10 a.m. today, the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals will be hearing oral arguments in the case known as Floyd v. New York.

In a sweeping judgment last month that requires A-to-Z changes in how the police operate — mandating everything from body cameras to new training programs — Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled stop-and-frisk unconstitutional. Later she denied the city’s request for a stay of her ruling until the appeal is decided. That’s what’s at issue today.

On the legal merits, it’s just common sense to stay such a sweeping decision, imposed by one judge, until the appeals are exhausted.

In fact, the haste with which advocates want Judge Scheindlin’s mandates imposed suggest that even they know how brittle it is. They are hoping to impose a fait accompli before an appeals court can get a good look at the decision.

Even more troubling is the insinuation via the center’s call to “pack the court” that judges can be swayed — or intimidated — by a courtroom stacked with partisans. As the court just proved in its recent ruling for free speech regarding individual contributions to political action committees, the Second Circuit judges can act swiftly and decisively — and in defiance of political pressures. They now have another opportunity to do so, and here’s hoping they take it.