上海419论坛,爱上海,上海龙凤419 - Powered by Ethel Maxim!

Justice Pariente tells of life in the middle of the election storm Justice Pariente tells of life in the middle of the election storm Assistant Editor In the past few months, Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente has appeared on television, in newspapers and magazines. She has had to trek to work every day through a maze of cameras, reporters, police guards and protesters. Her relatively private job was made, in a flash, a very public one. “I could’ve done without the experience of the last couple months,” she told members of the Florida Association for Women Lawyers at their luncheon at the Bar’s Midyear Meeting. Pariente spoke to the packed room about her role in the presidential election case and the importance of judicial independence. She also urged FAWL members to look at the election case as an argument for judicial independence. “For me personally, it certainly was a very humbling experience to be serving this state at this period of time. I referred to this point in time, somewhat humorously, as our 15 minutes of fame. Andy Warhol definitely knew what he was talking about,” she said. Despite the angry protesters and hate mail, the court received mostly positive input after their initial appearance on television, according to Pariente. In both national and international media, the court received high marks for its timeliness, professionalism and public outreach. “It was the first opportunity for many Americans to see a court in action, and at least before the release of our first opinion, we were in high acclaim for doing that,” said Pariente. “The court operated in the sunshine as far as oral arguments were concerned — we released our opinions promptly, and we were very proud of our public information officer who did a very good job in an extremely stressful situation.” Much of what was said and done behind the closed doors of the court is sealed, Pariente said, so lawyers should focus primarily on the results of the case, the most important of which is how the public views the judiciary as a result of the media barrage and what can be done to remedy this. “They believe the courts acted politically. . . . As an independent judiciary, we need to be concerned about how deep the wounds are from this election fight in the form of diminished respect and confidence in our judiciary as an independent and impartial branch of government, because the strength of our judiciary and our adherence to the rule of law is based on that respect and confidence,” she said. The public was not made aware of the necessity of an impartial judiciary, of the judicial nominating process through which the justices reached the bench, nor the level of the court’s accountability to the public, according to Pariente. Reporters asked the justices if they were embarrassed about being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which, she explained, is the nature of the appellate process. The public focused on the justices’ political affiliations, rather than their judicial experience. Much of what went on was entirely backwards, she said. Now is the time for lawyers, especially, to clean up the mess left behind, Pariente urged. Groups angry with the court’s ruling are targeting the justices who will be up for merit retention and selection elections in 2002. “We need to educate voters so they don’t vote based on what the justices ruled in this case,” she said. “If judges do not feel free to rule based on their conscientious analysis of the law, and instead rule based on the whims of popular opinion or if a judge fears reprisal, there really is a dire threat to the fundamental precepts underlying our democracy.” Pariente also encouraged FAWL members to consider running for seats in the legislature to monitor and protect the independence of the judiciary from a position of more power. “If we lose ground on such things as judicial independence, bit by bit, there will be a slow but irreparable change in the foundation of our democracy,” she said. “All we have to do is look around the world at dictatorships — whether it’s Cuba, China or Nazi Germany — to know where eventually those kinds of things will lead.” Despite the seriousness of the election case, some aspects of the experience were humorous, said Pariente. “The 15 minutes of fame started to fade when I learned I was in the year-end trivia contest [in The New Yorker magazine]. I was question number 22,” she joked. The magazine asked the question, “Who is Barbara J. Pariente?” and gave four possible answers: A, the women for whom Newt Gingrich left his second wife; B, one of the Florida Supreme Court justices who voted to resume the recount; C, a friend of Linda Tripp’s who said after her plastic surgery it looked like she had a head transplant; or D, the little girl who was first in line to buy the new “Harry Potter” book. “Some people said, `Now you’ve really made it. You’ve made it in The New Yorker,’ but another friend said, `Of course, you’re in the trivia section,’” Pariente mused. February 1, 2001 Amy Brown Assistant Editor Regular News