| dc.description.abstract |
Reseña:First, the chief circuit judges andjudicial councils have properly implemented the Act in respect to the vast majorityof the complaints filed, what we have referred to as the bulk of “the iceberg.”The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act authorizes any person to file a complaintalleging that a federal judge has engaged in conduct “prejudicial to the effective andexpeditious administration of the business of the courts.” The Act also permits anyperson to allege conduct reflecting a judge’s inability to perform his or her dutiesbecause of “mental or physical disability.” In 2004, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist pointed out that there “has beensome recent criticism from Congress about the way in which the Judicial Conductand Disability Act of 1980 is being implemented.” The Chief Justice consequentlycreated this Committee to look into the matter. He appointed to the Committeethree judges who as former circuit chief judges had had considerable experienceadministering the Act, two district court judges who have served as chief judges andas members of their circuits’ judicial councils, and his administrative assistant, withexperience in judicial branch administration. He asked the Committee to examinethe Act’s implementation, particularly in light of the recent criticism, and to reportits findings and any recommendations directly to him. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., asked the Committee to continue its work. First, the chief circuit judges andjudicial councils have properly implemented the Act in respect to the vast majorityof the complaints filed, what we have referred to as the bulk of “the iceberg.” national or regional press coverage, including matters that have come to the attention of (or been filed by) members of Congress. Such cases were few—we identified 17 over a five-year period. But we found the handling of five of them problematic. |
