What a lovely article about an exemplary woman, nay person. When all around us, we see small people striving, in any way possible, for fortune and fame, Ms. Greenhouse introduces to us someone whose life shines as a beacon. I had never heard of this remarkable person before, but am glad I know her now, particularly so in these times, fraught with the specter that everyone in important positions is soiled. Not everyone, not quite, not yet.
51
Well, if you like liberal judges, she is a great example of the kind of judge we need. She actually was a nice and smart and thoughtful person (as you can tell, I knew her) but she was definitely a judge who too often thought with her heart, not her brain. For some, this is the ideal judge, for others it is the antithesis of one. I am in the latter camp.
6
@Anonymous
Ah yes we need judges in the mold of Thomas and those appointed by the federalist society. Judges who look at the law with strict enforcement regardless of the impact on individuals.
Judges who would rule that if a contract stipulates a condition then enforce it. Never bother to question the justice itself. This is what our justice system is devolving into.
34
@Anonymous
It is a sign of our times that having a heart is considered the antithesis of a good judge. There is no room in shallow conservative minds for whole and wholesome judges who do not rigidly apply the letter of the law and who are attuned to higher law such as equity, justice, and humanity which only speak from the heart.
35
@Anonymous
Seriously, you are questioning her intelligence because you don't agree with her opinions regarding equal treatment under the law and other basic concepts in our government?
24
Judge Ward was certainly evidence that we as a country should do more to continue to elevate women to at least the equal position of men in the world. It certainly doesn't say much for past civilizations that women in this country had to wait over 140 years from the formation of the Constitution and the country to get the right to vote. We can show progress if following the 2020 election if we wind up with 40 women in the Senate and 170 in the House.
24
Thank you for writing this.
"...those were the days."
1
It used to be common for judges to be appointed in the 50s and 60s, after a full life at the bar. That changed as the courts, in response to litigation brought by social activists, became more willing to overrule legislative majorities to advance what judges thought were socially desirable goals. Both parties now try to put ideologically reliable judges on the court who are in their 40s and who will be around for another 30 or so years. Judge Wald only had 20 years to be a liberal activist on the court; her successors will have more time.
The kind of judge America needs is one who recognizes that legislation without representation makes a farce of democracy.
As a law student, a classmate and I had the privilege of arguing before Judge Wald during a moot court competition, certainly daunting prospect at that point in our fledgling careers that was rendered even more so by the fact that our argument rested on one of Judge Wald's own opinions from the D.C. Circuit. At the reception afterwards, in a room otherwise filled with assorted legal luminaries and lions of the bar, Judge Wald made a point of coming over to us to discuss at length not only our arguments and points of style but our personal lives and career hopes. I was immediately taken by her genuine graciousness and humility. I continue to count myself remarkably fortunate to have met Judge Wald at such a formative point in my legal career. She certainly was, as Ms. Greenhouse aptly argues here, an example of that certain type of lawyer best trusted to don the robes of justice and bring to the bench the experience and lessons of a life well lived rather than the empty calculations of reckless ambition and partisan maneuverings.
126
If you can read and understand the US Constitution, what more training is needed? Trump was not a politician. I would like to see him nominate a non-lawyer for the bench.
That would never work.
At the start of the US Civil War, Nathan Bedford Forrest, a wealthy business man enlisted as a private, in the Tennessee infantry. Since he was skeptical of the south's ability to wage a war with so little equipment, he offered to provide his company with weapons and supplies. He was promptly appointed as an officer and allowed to enlist his own regiment.
At the end of the Civil War, there was wide recognition that Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest allowed the southern states to fight on longer than they might otherwise would have. General Lee said General Forrest was the best General of the Confederate Army. Lee had never met Forrest. General Sherman said Forrest and Lincoln were the 2 geniuses of the war.
Throughout the war, Forrest out general-ed all of the Confederate and Union generals. He only failed when vastly outnumbered or out supplied. He frequently and vocally, discounted the value of a West Point education.
Maybe it's time to consider a walk-on.
1
Perhaps this ought to be the yardstick by which we measure our Supreme Court nominees. The ask yourself: how many of the recent batch would have passed that bar?
87
I am currently on faculty at a medical school evaluating candidates for admission. While the majority of candidates are bright and qualified, I find my myself drawn to the candidates with significant life experiences- the former missionary, the high school biology teacher, and the mother returning to school. Their applications have a refreshing depth and maturity beyond the typical applicant. In a profession like medicine, this type of personal development is so important. A's in organic chemistry are nice, but candidates who stretch themselves in service to others impress me the most.
77
@Pandora
I suspect life experience is more useful in medicine than for law. It escapes me as to why experience trumps judicial precedent.
@kwb "It escapes me as to why experience trumps judicial precedent."
I know that I am concerned that the current conservative Supreme Court does not follow precedent.
In 2000, the court for the first time in its history interfered in vote counting in a state election. In Florida there had many cases of contested elections and in each case the election officials and state courts had figured it out. But in Bush v Gore, the Supremes interfered to pick Bush as the new President.
In the Heller case relating to the second amendment, the Supremes abandoned precedent to say that it means that each individual can bear arms not just militias.
In a recent case relating to public employee unions, they overturned precedent to allow free riders.
They ruled that corporations are the same as individuals. There is no precedent for that.
So yes, I wish the court would stick to upholding legal precedent.
19
@kwb
On Yom Kippur we pray that mercy may temper judgements harsh decree.
A judge with life experience is more likely to to have some mercy than to stick completely to the letter of the law.
14
I was only vaguely aware of Judge Wald until reading this piece, but the thing that leapt off the page was, in her various quotes, the level of critical thinking. The very idea of the responsibility of judges to explain their decisions describes a process of critical thinking deeply embedded in Judge Wald's judicial DNA.
This is the quality I find most lacking in so many judges and politicians, and certainly in the electorate in general. Tweets (140 character --- not even words, characters! --- limit) and emails (keep it brief, please) and memes and a perverted adherence to brevity being the soul of wit (and intellect) have mostly displaced the depth of expression required by critical thought. I wonder how many readers clicked on the link to Judge Wald's 99 page opinion in Sierra Club v. Costle. I wonder how many current federal judges have read her Chicago Law Review article.
Eulogies such as this one leave me feeling warm and full of admiration for the likes of Judge Wald. But they also leave me with an ever so slight sense of despair that not only have we lost a judicial giant, we've lost yet another intellectual giant, a person of great devotion to the art of critical thinking, most certainly a threatened species.
62
@Jim And yet, at the trial level and in some appellate courts, judges are overwhelmed with work. Look at the caseloads in Family Court, Criminal Court, and Housing Court in NYC. Where is a judge supposed to find the time to write a 99 page opinion? Or even a 20 page opinion? Oh, and just be clear, I have been an admirer of Judge Wald's legal work for many years.
1
Over the years I have become very cynical of the role judges have played in reshaping our country's founding values and advancing the interests of the rich, the powerful and religious ideologues.
That said, thank you Ms. Greenhouse for your articles as they often remind me that there are good, well intended judges that quietly serve the people by protecting our Nation from the many who would pervert our justice system and Constitution in pursuit of selfish agendas — money, power and religious ideologies.
64
A brilliant empathic woman who lived by her credo: what wonderful qualifications for a judge. Thank you for sharing.
63
I have been a criminal defense lawyer for 36 years, and I had the pleasure of appearing before Judge Wald several times. She was brilliant, gracious, and unfailingly polite to all. She was the best-prepared judge I have ever encountered, frequently demonstrating a deeper knowledge of the facts of the case than the lawyers working on it. Most important, she had an unflagging commitment to fairness and justice.
We have lost a giant
174
Explaining “why we decide as we do,” she wrote, was “one of the few ways we have to justify our power.”
Thank you for a great column, Linda Greenhouse, I guess I hadn't heard of Judge Wald because no scandal or corruption taints her name. Patricia Wald's ilk is already sorely missed.
'Justice' in the letter of the law can be spiked with meanness and revenge, i.e., extreme example being death penalty, but there are many others. Justice can also be tempered with mercy. As it should be.
Thank you again.
1
What an inspiring tribute. At first disappointed that Ms. Greenhouse was not noting an up and comer for the Federal bench, I was soon so glad to be reading about Patricia Wald. Thanks, Linda.
Ms. Greenhouse, thank you for this op-ed. I am embarrassed to admit that I was not aware of Judge Wald, even though I am a father of two extraordinary women, a progressive on women’s issues, a supporter of first Barrack Obama and then Hillary Clinton, and a lawyer. What a remarkable person was Patricia Wald. Where have all the flowers gone?
1
Really excellent, Ms Greenhouse. Really enjoyed meeting and getting acquainted with Patricia Wald. Thank you so much for this column. paul in bessemer
I hesitate to write this, since "nil nisi bonum", and evidently Judge Wald was a wonderful person.
However, this statement gives me pause:
"“I believe that Germany implicitly waived its immunity by engaging in the barbaric conduct alleged in this case,” Judge Wald wrote in a dissent that she read from the bench. "
How do you "implicitly" waive immunity under an explicit law? And who is to be the judge of what is sufficiently barbaric to result in the implicit waiving of immunity under a law, or perhaps what is not barbaric enough to justify an implicit waiving? A single solitary person?
Yes, of course Nazi Germany was barbaric. But one day a Judge Wald makes this normative judgment AND applies it to her reading of a law against Nazi Germany. Who is to say that another day another Judge will not do the same in a decision that FAVORS a Nazi Germany: in other words, re-write a law?
I am no fan of Nazi Germany - my grandfather died in Dachau.
4
My mother was college educated by the Sacred Heart nuns in the 30s and raised eight more or less successful children while working part time in the catering business in our grocery store.
How she did that was as stated in the article there were a lot of things she just didn't notice as she also read and played contract bridge.
The kind of judge we will no longer see as long as Trump is in the White House and McConnell and his band of right wing sycophants run the senate.
9
Thank you for this lovely tribute
10
Patricia Wald visited my law school, University of Connecticut School of Law, during my journey through there as a single mother with three young children. She spoke before a modest turnout of students under the banner of the Women's Law group but she cleared clouds and fog for me as a woman who took a bold step after a difficult divorce and attended law school on a significant scholarship. The demand of the academics were hefty but the larger burden was seeing my way into the male dominated field as a 40 year old with a zeal for justice.
Judge Wald was a clear, firm, humane luminary who sat before those attending in an unpretentious setting but spoke in a heartfelt yet intellectual way hardly of the law's impact on real issues for a wide array of people and situations. There were many professors and students at UConn Law who were impressive thinkers and human beings and I remember them, but shortly after listening to Judge Wald that evening I could see my pathway into fields of law, trust and estate law and family law, that would nourish me, lay out aspirations for my children (and pay for their college) and offer real people their own path through some of life's harsher times.
I have been quietly grateful for decades since then to Judge Ward and reading Lind Greenhouse's comments, I can see that a was never alone.
10
I share the thoughts of DT below. I admire Ms. Greenhouse immensely and eagerly consume and digest each of her columns. I am slightly ashamed that I did not know of Judge Wald, but, Holy Smokes, she sounds like a person truly of great stature.
3
Can you imagine Judge Wald being nominated to the bench by the Trump administration?
2
First column in a long time that isn't unbearably sad.
5
This is one more example that reinforces my decision to read everything Linda Greenhouse writes.
6
Whoever imagined that today’s White House could start scraping the bottom of the legal barrel and come up with third-rate judges acceptable to the party of Lincoln?
#DumpTrump
7
But did she like beer? Did her friend like beer? Did she know the Clintons would conspire to take revenge? Don't judges need beer?
9
@Duncan
Thanks for the quadruple laugh!
3
As usual this is wonderfully written. I am sure I would have found Judge Wald to be a wonderful person, but I think history has shown her support of Obama over Clinton to be misplaced. The problem with Obama was that he is an intelligent, compassionate, well informed who expected his opponents to be men of good will. This turned out to be a tragic error that I believe Hillary would not have made.
7
@Len Charlap She had a perfect example of men who were not of good will in the husband she enabled. She also shared his greed and sense of entitlement.
You may have been fooled but unfortunately the electoral College vote favored someone more of a fraud than she is.
1
@Edward Blau - It is easy to write unsupported smears, but let's look at Hillary's record:
In 1977, she co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
During her second year (at Yale), she worked at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development & working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973). She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale–New Haven Hospital and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free legal advice for the poor, In the summer of 1970 she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. There she researched various migrant workers' issues including education, health & housing. Edelman later became a significant mentor.
Rodham began a year of postgraduate study on children & medicine at the Yale Child Study Center. In late 1973 her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review. Discussing the new children's rights movement, the article stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals" & argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but instead that courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis.The article became frequently cited in the field.
And so on.
1
@Len Charlap She started out as a Goldwater Girl, did good things at Yale and then married Bill. It was all downhill after that.
Terrific subject and clearly a message for now. Finding hope in politicians remains a challenge.
3
Thank you for sharing your experience of this marvelous woman. Superb column. I look forward to your columns which are always interesting and insightful.
11
OMG, Linda Greenhouse is wonderful! I have been wondering at what point barbarism and cruelty transcends submission to the precise reading of the law, and this says it well:
"[Germany] implicitly waived its immunity by engaging in the barbaric conduct alleged in this case ... What could be more fundamental than an individual’s right to be free from the infliction of cruel and sadistic terrors designed with the sole purpose of destroying the individual’s psyche and person because of the national, ethnic, racial or religious community to which he belongs? What could be more elementary than a prohibition against eviscerating a person’s human dignity by thrusting him into the shackles of slavery?”" [Khashoggi? Magnitsky? the Kurds? Al Sisi's and Duterte's victims? the list transcends boundaries, doesn't it?]
The cruelty and horrors inflicted from the top these days are, to my eye, transcending the precise constraints of the law.
The destruction of our air, earth, and water transcends them too.
I know it's not that simple, but in facing real problems, the contract has been so modified that fact and truth and danger are subject to posturing and lies.
If our teachers and education were universal and respected, we might have a chance to learn to value life and evaluate lies, instead of playing whack-a-mole with a smorgasbord of victim blaming and playing to the lowest violent instincts of unfetttered selfishness.
12
Linda, I read all your columns with great interest. Thank you for this one!
7
Of course Greenhouse, you believe in any judge that opposes the constitution.
2
@mmmmmm
Thanks! I needed that laugh.
1
i'd like to add to a previous comment--and I've mentioned this briefly before--that linda greenhouse is a marvellous writer.
she seems incapable of writing a piece that isn't interesting--no matter what the legal or personal topic.
and, let's face it, a lot of eyes glaze over when legal issues are written about or discussed.
finally, it staggers me to think it's been going on 11 years since ms greenhouse was the main nyt writer about the scotus.
10
Thank you for this obituary, to lift my hopes on a dispiriting winter day, in fact a dispiriting two years. Maybe at some future date, the current miasma brought about by the Republican effort to pack the courts with uncaring individuals and charlatans will lift; maybe there are other Patricia Walds out there who will be appointed as judges and bring a sense justice to our jurisprudence.
23
@SV
"Charlatans": That is the word I was looking for, for the "strict interpretationist" Justices.
Thank you for this fine tribute to a remarkable person.
22
Just a note to register my admiration and gratitude to Linda Greenhouse not only for this fine column, but for her instructive, luminous career.
44
Thank you for shining a light on a life well lived. To be able to read your perspective on that life is a gift that is truly appreciated.
28
Just a few thoughts on your last observations. Having grown up with (and at the same schools as) three of Patricia Wald's five children, I can testify that they were all excellent students and good kids.
It might be just that she was lucky. It might be that it is all genetics and environmental causes (like good schools). It might be that a helpful husband also makes a difference, and two parents who were pretty good role models.
My guess is that is that it is all three combined, plus...maybe it is good to "not notice a lot of things," at least when it comes to child raising. I suspect hyper-vigilance as a parenting ideal did not exist in the 50s and 60s, and wasn't necessarily an improvement.
25
Bravo, Ms. Greenhouse and thanks to Judge Wald for a life fully lived.
20
There is the military industrial complex.
There is also the judiciary mega law firm complex.
The author leaves out the husband.
The husband who was the name partner of a 100 person law firm with offices in New York and London.
An ordinary person off the street does not get to go from clerkship to clerkship and office to office without sponsors and connections.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., to become a judge you have to be endorsed by a political organization or be sponsored by the establishment.
Judge Ward was at the right places at the right time.
8
@True Observer If by "establishment" you mean the rule of constitutional law and subscribing to the enforcement of it, I wouldn't describe that as unfortunate. Certainly, prior to the extreme politicization of the courts, cream rose to the top. Surely Learned Hand, Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall, Hugo Black and others did not merely go from clerkship to clerkship, achieving their places in the pantheon of great jurists because of a handshake with their "connections". Law is all about connections - and those ties are to word justice.
6
@True Observer Right now if a young person wanted to aim for a slot on the Federal Judiciary, the thing to do would be to go to an Ivy League college, then to Harvard or Yale Law School, become a law clerk for some conservative judges or, if possible, justices. Then become active in republican politics and by all means become a member of the Federalist Society.
Your last sentence says "Judge Ward (actually Wald) was at the right places at the right time." She did not make to the grand prize which is to be on the Supremes. She might have made it if she had been a conservative and in the Federalist Society. It would probably have helped also if she had been a man.
7
@True Observer Too bad you got things wrong, at least as to the history of this Judge.
2
Thank ypu Linda Greenhouse. And thank you Pat Wald a Woman of Valor.
How blessed this country was to have you sitting on the bench.
How sad that so many coming after you are just making careers rather than providing justice and truth. I pray that those touched by your compassion and intelligence, your thoughtfulness and, yes, your love, will go on to do as you did - provide justice and kindness to others. And make the world a better place.
19
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for this excellent summary of Ms. Wald's tenure on OUR judicial bench.
You say, "Patricia Wald was one of fewer than a dozen women in her Yale Law School class, the first woman to serve on her important court, the first to be its chief judge."
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has a similar story. Women were EXCLUDED from practicing law before these two were admitted to law school. Once men realized that strong, powerful, smart, Socially Conscious Women were in the field there was a tremendous backlash and women - as well as minorities - were again attacked.
It started when Nixon was planted in OUR white house by sinister, criminal forces and really took hold when they planted Reagan there. He immediately took the teeth out of programs that allowed women and minorities to participate and get ahead in the "white man's world".
However, like Senator Warren, women that were on the ladder "Persisted". Now many of these women have enough experience and strength to hold the most prestigious positions in OUR United States of America - especially OUR U.S. Supreme Court and federal/state courts of the highest order.
NOW is the time to help them get ahead.
19
Linda Greenhouse has written a wonderful tribute to the memory of Judge Patricia Wald, a remarkable person and jurist on what is generally considered the second-most important court in America.
I am a recently retired male trial lawyer who is nearly a generation younger that Judge Wald, but I still come from an era when women were a distinct minority in the practicing bar and definitely on the bench. Anyone with an active practice in the federal court system knew her reputation for excellence.
Years ago, men often referred to women in both the legal and medical professions who, like Judge Patricia Wald, interrupted their careers to raise small children as “broken arrows.” That epithet was not used pejoratively, but one hopes that male sensitivities have grown significantly in the 21st century.
We now realize how much easier it is for men in all professions, and we celebrate the fact that the number of female lawyers has burgeoned dramatically.
21
Quoting Judge Wald:
"What could be more elementary than a prohibition against eviscerating a person’s human dignity by thrusting him into the shackles of slavery?”
Yet, today, the Trump is administration is reducing tens of thousands of unpaid federal employees to a state of de facto slavery.
Explain again, please, how America is "number 1."
21
Hearing about an exemplary judge like Wald makes me bemoan the fact that Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas are Supreme Court judges.
Responsible authorities should look into was some kind off quid pro quo involved in Anthony Kennedy's resignation from the Supreme Court. Kennedy's son worked for Deutsch bank which was the one bank that would lend Trump money.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a21999314/anthony-kennedy-son-donald-trump-deutche-bank/
18
@Javaforce. And I bemoan the fact that Jagan wasn’t never a judge and now willing sit for decades on the Supreme Court. I guessing there’s nothing like on the job training.
@Jackson
People who were not judges may be more suited to the responsibilities of the Supreme Court than those who were. The Justices do more than decide small points of applied law; they are the ultimate judges of constitutionality, which need much more than strict legal knowledge. It requires a knowledge of the effect of law upon reality and how that impinges upon the rights and duties enumerated and implied by the Constitution. A person who understands law from the viewpoint of those affected by it is what that needs.
Btw, Cheddi and Janet Jagan were in Guyana. Elena Kagan (obviously) is the Justice. :)
2
@Javaforce: Those judges you name tower above any of the liberal judges that legislate from the bench and twist the meaning of the constitution.
2
Ms. Greenhouse, in talking about Judge Wald's life, first extols the virtues of a neutral system based on the rule of law protecting everyone equally. But she then touts Judge Wald's dissent in the Holocaust case, as if the results of a case - ruling in favor of the most sympathetic party - is what matters. You can't have it both ways. If Germany was entitled to immunity in that case, the sympathies owed to the plaintiff were irrelevant. I'm sure the judges who voted to dismiss that claim were doing so based on the rule of law and the reasons for giving other nations immunity from such claims, and were not ignoring the sympathies owed to the plaintiff. The author does a disservice by treating these types of decisions in such a simplistic manner.
11
@R.P. I may have misunderstood your comment, for which, if so, I apologize. But your comment seems to suggest that in any given case there is only one way to interpret the law correctly. If that is indeed the case, then why do we have more than one judge on appeals cases? It seems that in the citation offered by Ms. Greenhouse, Judge Wald explains why the application of immunity does not apply.
12
@R.P.
Yours is a very thought provoking comment. I don't agree that the sympathies owed the plaintiff are irrelevant. Perhaps the importance of a dissenting opinion for a case where established rights of immunity were upheld is in the very voicing of those sympathies for the injured party. Those sympathies are now enshrined in writing for future jurists and, more importantly, law makers to consider when faced with difficult questions of rights and restitution.
6
@Barry J Chesler, it is unclear from the Greenhouse article and from the portions of Wald's dissent that she quoted what the jurisdictional basis may have been (or failed to be) in that case. But I would agree with R.P.'s view that it appears that Wald leaned more heavily on emotion and humanity than the application of law.
3
What a wonderful tribute to a clearly exemplary judge and human being. And thank heaven for the federal judges all over the country who, by striking down at least some of the president’s most egregious attempts at subverting the Constitution, continue to give us hope that we’ll make it through these dark times.
17
Thank you, thank you, Ms Greenhouse for introducing us to this marvelously talented and inspiring woman. I am passing the article along to my daughter in law...and my sons.
10
Judge Wald's career and statements sound like the epitome of Judicial Temperament; an set of attributes which seem to be conveniently ignored by the Senate in their current evaluation of candidates for the Federal Courts Bench and SCOTUS.
9
A splendid encomium, Ms. Greenhouse, to a woman (more than a judge) who’s “noticed everything.”
I took notice of how the greater good ran through her biography. When one reviews recent Supreme Court activity and the nominations to that bench, one wonders where the civility and selflessness have gone.
Gone to political ideology, everyone.
25
Greenhouse writes:
"not an ambitious young careerist strategizing the next move up the ladder"
Hmmm. Whom do you think she's imagining?
She forgot to mention beer.
30
@Doug McKenna
You mean Brett Khavabeer?
1
A d now we have two new members of SCOTUS who not only are white ivy league men but attended the same DC boys Catholic high school. Talk about going backwards. Their limited life experience is of no benefit to We the People who are in need of wise leaders as we teeter on the precipice of despotic plutocracy.
46
@karen
You left out the high school's 19-hole golf course, apparently essential training for riding the Federalist Society career escalator. And the beer. And strict textualism, as in the infamous Gorsuch dissent in the frozen truck driver case. What a contrast to Judge Wald's humanity and eloquence.
Thank you, Linda Greenhouse.
1
Republicans don't nominate people like Judge Wald to be judges. They nominate people (mostly white men) who favor wealthy corporations, the ultra-rich, polluters, gun nuts, executive power (when the executive is a Republican) and the religious right.
53
This is another argument for why we need to have 18 year terms for Supreme Court justices, with a new one appointed every two years. A Supreme Court position should be the capstone of a long legal career, not something presidents use to set the direction of the court for decades by appointing young judges.
35
now there's a life to be guided by.
13
Perhaps she noticed what was important.
15
I have often wondered why it seems like only the "liberal" attorneys do public interest work. Does this mean that "conservative" attorneys are not concerned about the public interest? Does this mean that if you are a conservative judge, you do not care about justice, unequal treatment under the law and other traditional concepts, only about trying to maintain societal norms as they were in the 1700s by use of the judiciary? Can you imagine if when LBJ was president, we had the current SCOTUS court? Segregation, racial discrimination, religious (Christian) teaching in public schools and other social conventions stemming from a majority not respecting the rights of various minorities would still be with us. The conservative judges would rely upon a narrow intrerpretation of the thinking in 1700s using their crystal ball.
23
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for your reporting and writing. Many of us depend on it for insight and inspiration.
31
Let me add, in thinking about Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and the philosophical work of French philosopher Paul-Michel Foucault it is important to understand their thinking regarding our criminal justice system. Yet we are defunding history courses. I mention this because we can learn from history and these important thinkers, which put policies in place.
This is perfectly reasonable in thinking about the value of a four year degree advocating the STEM courses.
I have supported the democrats for all of my life and things are not better for the middle class. This is social stratification and I agree with Paul Krugman that while sociology is important it ran many of us into the ground, meaning we barely have enough for basic living standards.
5
Wonderful article of a wonderful woman. I am appalled at the age and experience of the judges that are being appointed today. No life experience, just far right views. These will stick with us for many years unfortunately.
45
I began to read the piece hoping to learn what kind of judge we need, but I was disappointed. It appears the judges we need are those with whom Ms. Greenhouse agrees.
4
@Steve Brown
I believe you have misinterpreted the article. There is no enumeration from Ms. Greenhouse as to how many of Judge Wald''s opinions she agrees with, just an expression of admiration for Wald's judicial philosophy and professionalism. Her point, it seems, is that we would be well-served to seek judges with a breadth of experience beyond the narrow confines of the bench.
3
@Steve Brown Bingo
@John: Thank you for your response. Sure, there was not an analysis of the judge's opinions (I was expecting a little of that) but looking at the issue she championed, is peeking into her political leaning, and from what I know of Ms. Greenhouse, she has a similar sensibility.
This is a formative article, in thinking about, what will change in the democratic party as candidates announce their bids. For example, I would like to know how we are going to pay for policies such as healthcare. I listened to Gillibrands announcement on the Colbert Show. It's the same rhetoric.
I understood Gillibrand to be stating she is for healthcare as a right. However, entrance into the middle class is by merit whom will be paying for this healthcare. That is a meritocracy, yet, she is against institutional basis that keep social stratification in place.
What is wrong with this? Is this a lesson in rhetoric 101?
1
Tammy, I suspect "free health care" is an opening position for later negotiations. It won't be free, but we can hope it will be a whole lot better than now.
1
@Tammy Since we as a country already pay MORE per capita than other industrialized democracies—almost all of which have universal health care—paying for it is likely to be easier than under the current system.
I don't fully understand your comment—your writing is not particularly clear—but it appears you think access to healthcare should be by merit?! I find that morally lacking. Under the current system, people die unnecessarily due to lack of funds. That is a disgrace.
2
Linda Greenhouse should be the next Democratic president's nominee to SCOTUS. She represents the road back .
19
If US citizens are concerned about the direction of the US, and the West in general, perhaps they should choose to listen to experts like Judge Wald, instead of tyrants like Trump and McConnell.
24
A nice woman. Never should have been a judge.
1
@Bob . What exactly did you miss in this informative essay? She was all things to all people. Her children, perhaps her husband, although he is not mentioned, her constituents but most importantly, herself. Why did she not sit on the Supreme Court?
22
@Bob Are you saying that nice people with common sense and ability can't be judges?
I hope not.
10
@Bob because.....?
9
Linda Greenhouse is an exceptional writer.
42
I understand it is a waste of time. But I wonder how the "conservative" supreme court judges relate to people like Patricia Wald. They seem so walled off, so completely prisoners of a shallow, often mean ideology. They seem literal minded, in most cases heartless, in other cases (more Robert's than the others) clueless. They aren't robots. Can they ever be reached? I have no idea.
23
@Robert Roth
Those conservative judges think she was someone who tried to make things better from her perspective as opposed to just applied the law. That "literal minded, in most cases heartless" approach is what judges are supposed to do. Pat Wald was a legislator with a gavel.
1
@Anonymous
You are wrong. Judges are supposed to dispense justice. Without that, the law is worthless.
1
@Anonymous
conservative judges who "just applied the law"
Do you honestly believe conservative judges "just apply the law"?
2
Judge Wald would be proud of you. You have won my admiration and respect for the work that you are doing. Keep it up.You are a breath sunshine a sometimes dark moment.
15
Thank God for Linda Greenhouse. Something you can believe in on a regular basis.
58
I last saw Judge Wald as she walked and talked easily with her daughter through the galleries of the Phillips Collection in Washington, DC. I had been an admirer for years, and I intentionally stopped the two of them to tell her of my admiration and respect for her life of commiment to justice and equality. She brightened (as did her daughter), and thanked me graciously. [We Then segued briefly into the obilgatory whispers about the horrors du jour of Trump.]
Whenever I run into someone whose work I have known, studied, and held in high esteem -- especially if they have achieved old age, as had Judge Wald (which is how I addressed her) I try to tell them with as much specificity as I can muster on the spot, how much their life's work has enriched me. Many years ago, before ascending to the bench, Judge Wald had been an expert advisor to a group of Senate staff (I was among them) as we worked to craft legislation to bolster the lobbying disclosure laws. With deliberate and unadorned delivery she provided lessons on the law, the proposals under consideration, and their likely and possible implications. She was brilliant. I am so very glad that I took the occasion to tell her so, in the company of her daughter, on a random meeting one afternoon in the brilliant glow of Duncan Phillips' legacy.
75
@Riley Temple That's a nice recollection, and quite moving in the way you tell it.
8
lovely column.
who knew actual life experience was a good thing for a judge?
23
So Wald went back to work after 10 years at home, and was a remarkable success. Leaving aside the question of how connections helped her get a job, I think Greenhouse just made a great case for hiring workers with gray hair and gaps on their resumes. Thanks.
29
Judge Patricia Wald was so respected by other women judges and honored by the National Association Association of Women Judges.
Never underestimate the power of a few well-crafted sentences in a judicial decision -- and sometimes, an entire decision -- can have on the course of legal development. If especially compelling, both can bring to a dead stop concepts which would take the law down an ominous pathway.
Judge Patricia Wald was one terrific lady and an esteemed jurist.
19
Rights need to sit inside resources. A notion of rights which outstrips resources is pointless and a legal fiction.
Lawyers do not understand this simple point and neither does America which understands (legal) rights but has no provision in its constitution for the place of resources.
This issue arises with the several thousands from Central America who would like to come to the US. And of course America can accommodate them. But once we do that, what about the millions from Bangladesh or Africa who also want the same better life?
Lawyers and activists do not face this question because they do not care about resources, only about rights.
5
@Ludwig
I am not sure I agree with you but the balance of rights and resources is a critical issue for a just society. How do you balance resource protection and distribution with human and civil society needs? Do we allow those who have garnered great wealth and access to keep it all and do we allow those with power to exploit resources thoughtlessly? There is one camp in this country who would answer yes to the last two questions and totally ignore the first question.
5
@Ludwig
Your imagination, aided by Trumpist propaganda, ran away with you. You don't know those imaginary millions so you can't speak for them
@Lady in Green - - Its just a matter of establishing priorities. Should humanity and governments exist for the universal benefit of "We the People" or, as now, "We the Multi- Billionaire Elite One Percent" !!?? It takes spectacular - 'Leaders' - to effect the former and just mountains of money for the accomplish the latter. I can't think of any 'Leaders' who currently fill the bill. However, as a practical matter I visualize a person(S) who is/are half Jesus Christ and half Jimmy Hoffa . Cordially, Don JGL
Thank you Ms. Greenhouse, for informing me and many others about the remarkable Judge and Citizen Weld. The richness and depth of purpose in her life, expressed in so many different and important areas, leave us uttering that this is one of those singular individuals who have truly made a difference in her years spent upon this earth. I am so happy for her, and her family, that before her death Judge Weld was publicly honored by President Obama for her lifelong contributions, on and off the bench, to the collective humanity and justice of America.
16
Beautifully written tribute. What a deep and meaningful closing line.
21
There is another reason they write: to persuade other judges. It persuades an appeals court. It persuades other judges who face a similar situation the next time.
There are judges who just give simple orders. There are appeals courts which issue "Memorandum Opinions" that can't be quoted, or even just a ruling without opinion. Those are often signals of a hard case that the judges feel ought not to guide more general practice.
The common law is built in layers. Those layers are the reasoned opinions of judges.
If they failed to do that, our legal system would collapse. We'd have nothing more than the French system of a Code, and that without the protections the French built in to cover its problems.
15
@Mark Thomason
Thank you.
6
Thanks, Linda. I am transported back to grade school civics classes where I learned that the people whom we choose to govern us matter, and that if we elect empathetic, intelligent people as our representatives and, when on the ballot, our judges, we will bask in the warmth of the United States Constitution, a document that few of us deserve.
Judge Wald's perspicacious analysis of the remarkable but flawed career of Hillary Clinton and Wald's assertion that nations that engage in barbarity should enjoy no statute of limitations remind us that we should have a say when our leaders engage in political assassination (often by drone strike) and plump for wars as much for public relations as for national interest. Hillary Clinton was, perhaps unreasonably, enticed to join the Old Boys club with other Christians who rationalized killing Muslims as somehow not murder.
Increasingly, the criterion for public office appears to value malleability to corporate interests above intelligence and judgment. America's tribunes, while mouthing platitudes wistfully reminiscent of what once were our country's ideals, are now so beholden to financial benefactors that activist courts are necessary to exhibit legislative dirty laundry and disinfect it in the light of the Constitution.
I would be very interested in learning Judge Wald's opinion, if any was published, on how modern politicians have twisted the meaning of an Amendment to allow any nut with a grudge to murder dozens at a time.
18
@Jack Mahoney
Hi jack.
I dated Judge Wald’s daughter in law school and serve on a comittee with Linda Greenwald. Now i see a great comment by you- small world.
This is Zachary’s Dad- David
5
Although I am just a simple ordinary citizen, I find this article encouraging and refreshing from the daily political drama in DC. I hope our government still have plenty of judges like her.
26
Thank you for this tribute to the remarkable Judge Wald. With rare exceptions such as Justice Ginsburg, few of the incredible women who have contributed so much to American law are known outside of the profession. More than 30 years ago, I served as a law clerk at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I was privileged to work for Judge Amalya Kearse. The only African American woman in her University of Michigan law school class of 1962, she became editor of the law review and graduated with honors. At only thirty, she was a partner at a major Wall Street law firm. Named to the Second Circuit by President Carter, the outstanding jurist was frequently considered for the Supreme Court. In what would be unimaginable today, Judge Kearse was on the "short lists" of both Republican and Democratic presidents. Jurists like Patricia Wald and Amalya Kearse are indeed models of the kind of judges our nation will always need.
92
This wonderfully inspiring tribute points to the value of those who serve our nation in positions that are not the usual front and center ones. One of our greatest needs is for "Lions in the Senate" instead of eager new comers who want to be president. We need public servants whose personal lives are rich enough that they can afford to serve others.
28
How wonderful that we have such people, rare as they may be. What jumps out is breadth of human experience. Its very different than being a 4.0 college grind followed by a "distinguished' 3 years as a law student at Harvard or Yale. Careerism not human experience is what characterizes too many of tody's high court jurists.
37
What a lovely tribute, and a reminder of the potential for grace and compassion in the rule of law. Thank you too for your insightful comments on the current Supreme Court. I appreciate the balance and history you bring, and am always interested in how you gently point out how much better the Court could be.
58
Ah, the Power of the Word. Yours, Linda, and hers. What a fine tribute to a woman who found purpose and meaning in all she did for more than 6 decades. Thank you.
114
As I read this fine article, several thoughts came to mind. Let me briefly share them for whatever insights they bring.
Reading the last paragraph which ends "Patrician Wald noticed everything," I thought of the great English Queen Elizabeth I who is supposed to have said that "she sees everything but says little." What does that mean? To me it means that she knows everything that is going on but uses judgement to pick what to talk about, correct, change, etc. Like Judge Wald, "There were just a lot of things" Queen Elizabeth " didn't notice."
A second thought was about my mother. My mother and father worked full time and my mother raised four children while working and keeping house. Practically every breakfast and dinner was a home cooked meal. I know that this takes someone with common sense, organization, and dedication. Someone who knows what to do and what to leave undone. Someone with experience of actually living life.
Lastly, I thought of Sam Alito. I think that I am correct that Judge Alito has always worked for the Federal Government. When he left law school he became a government attorney, then he became a Federal Appeals court judge, then Supreme Court judge. Sam Alito is probably a nice man and maybe we shouldn't single him out. But his life experience is very limited and I wonder if he has any understanding of how the law works with real people on a daily basis. We now have many judges like Sam Alito.
169
@Aubrey
Don’t minimize how resentful Alito was that his alma mater, Princeton, saw fit to admit women.
Perhaps if Alito had been exposed to classmates as brilliant as Patricia Wald, he might have a different world view than the cramped one he exhibits even now. But maybe he would be the same reactionary he is now anyway.
50
@Paul Thanks for your comment and best wishes.
7
@Aubrey Alito gave us a president that was not elected.
11
Thank you for this fine tribute to Judge Wald. It is inspiring, something we can use a lot more of these days. And yes, we definitely need more like her. Just saw "On The Basis Of Sex", about RBG, and it is equally inspiring. These women are among my heroes.
76
Thank you, Ms. Greenhouse, for this lovely profile of a woman I had little knowledge about before reading your piece.
Now our highest judges, like now Justice Kavanaugh, screech about the injustice meted out to them from a highly partisan and polarizing position.
Rather than serving the law and being granted the right to do so by the consent of the governed, the current crop of judges being packed into the courts have been selected for a conservative even authoritarian Anschluss.
We need more Judge Walds. Badly.
134