McConnell: SHOP Act Delivers Real Solutions To Judge Shopping
‘But in case anyone is wondering, this is what judge shopping looks like. Wait for a ruling against you and then argue late for a sweeping recusal rule designed to target the judge you don’t like and remove him. Under my SHOP Act, this kind of behavior could result in severe discipline for lawyers who engage in it.’
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) delivered the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding the SHOP Act:
“My Democratic colleagues like to complain about judge shopping. Of course, their real complaint is that regular Americans are succeeding in opposing liberal policies in court. We know this because when it comes to real-life judge shopping, our friends on the other side of the aisle don’t seem to be bothered.
“I recently introduced a bill, the SHOP Act, that would stop the actual practice of judge-shopping—that is, improperly steering a case to a judge or trying to knock judges off assigned cases because a litigant doesn’t like them.
“The bill’s language was based on an egregious and unethical pattern of conduct undertaken by two liberal advocacy groups in Alabama.
“Well, it seems the far-left Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in on the judge-shopping game, too. The CFPB was recently sued in Texas over its credit-card late-fee rule. After a whole lot of procedural wrangling, the case ended up before the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in favor of the rule’s challengers, 2-1.
“The CFPB and its allies didn’t like that. Just days after losing, the agency filed a letter with the clerk of the court alleging to have suddenly discovered that ‘large credit card issuers’ have a financial stake in the litigation.
“Now, they didn’t raise this when the case began, as required under court rules. Only afterward did they decide to take umbrage with the fact that the judge who ruled against them, Don Willett, has a son whose Coverdell education savings account includes a handful of shares in Citigroup.
“Urged on by an army of Arabella Advisors, the CFPB argued that even though the case before Judge Willett didn’t involve Citigroup, he had to recuse himself in case it affected the value of that stock.
“In other words: After a judge ruled against them, the CFPB identified vague new parties-at-interest to ensnare the judge through his son’s college savings account. What a tangled web they weave at the CFPB.
“To its credit, the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct Committee didn’t buy this absurd contention. They unanimously ruled that Judge Willett was not required to recuse himself.
“But in case anyone is wondering, this is what judge shopping looks like. Wait for a ruling against you and then argue late for a sweeping recusal rule designed to target the judge you don’t like and remove him.
“Under my SHOP Act, this kind of behavior could result in severe discipline for lawyers who engage in it.
“If any of our Democratic colleagues are interested in actually solving the problem of judge shopping, I hope they’ll join me as co-sponsors.”
###
Next Previous
