Admired @ Work: Start Where You Are

In our interviews with the world’s highest achievers, one after another told us how important it is to do your job better than anyone has before you.  “Do it like you’re going to have it forever,” Jeff Immelt advised over coffee one afternoon.  Don’t spend all your energy and talent focused on “the next job; learn something – learn a lot – about the job you have today.  First go deep, then go broad.”  First develop a skill set and demonstrate that you’re good at it, and then you will earn the attention to be offered more opportunities. 

Ironically, people are so busy looking for the perfect job or the dream opportunity they forget to pay attention to the job they have.  The most valuable people in your life – your boss, your colleagues, your organization, your significant others/family – will remember if you tried your best and treated others with respect.  They will want to help you as you helped them and that may mean an amazing job opportunities or key connections that change your life forever.  On the other hand, no one will thank you for keeping one foot out the door, waiting for your change to move on to a better place.  And opportunities might just pass you by because of it. 

If you don’t feel you can add value where you are, think about where you could add value and get yourself there.

Excerpts taken from “Admired – 21 Ways to Double Your Value” by Mark C. Thompson and Bonita S. Thompson

Jason Mazzone (University of Illinois College of Law) has posted Batson Remedies (Iowa Law Review, Vol. 97, pp. 1613-1633, 2012) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Batson v. Kentucky and its progeny hold that discriminatory uses of peremptory challenges in jury selection are unconstitutional. However, the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation is unclear. The Batson Court addressed remedies in a single ambiguous footnote that identifies two possible remedies: discharging the venire and selecting a new panel or reseating the improperly stricken juror. This footnote did not, however, specify whether these are the only permissible remedies, and it did not explain when one of the two is more appropriate than the other. Subsequent Supreme Court cases also do not clarify what the appropriate remedy is for a Batson violation, and the Court has never overturned a remedy imposed by a trial judge. This essay, prepared for a symposium marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of Batson, canvasses the remedies that state courts have imposed for Batson violations and discusses some underappreciated opportunities that Batson presents to state courts to address discriminatory uses of peremptory challenges. Recent case law from the Supreme Court distinguishes between the authority — vested ultimately in that Court — to define a federal constitutional violation and the authority of state courts to determine how best to remedy the violation. Read in light of this case law, Batson gives state courts considerable leeway to adopt their own unique measures to respond to discrimination in jury selection practices.

Justice At Stake reported a very troubling situation in Wisconsin. Judges, no matter what their position….from limited jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, are occasionally called upon to make a decision that is politically unpopular with some people. But if courts are to be fair and impartial, if judges are to contribute to maintaining our democracy, fear can’t drive decisions, and there is no place for retribution in reaction to honestly drafted orders. 

“Dane County Judge Juan B. Colas has gotten outraged letters and calls after ruling against parts of Act 10, Wisconsin’s law that restricted collective bargaining for many public employees.

Judge Colas was accused of being a “cheap political hack for the Marxist Democratic Party” in one letter, and a “damned liberal activist kangaroo jurist” in another. Some angry individuals cited his race. The comments followed Governor Scott Walker’s petition assailing Colas for his ruling.

Chief judge of the Fifth Judicial Administrative District, Bill Foust, criticized as inappropriate the harsh responses to Colas’ ruling as well as Gov. Walker’s assault on the judge. For more, see Gavel Grab.”

For most judges we read stories like this and think something along the lines of “could have happened to me.”

Perhaps we need to do something more, like sending a note to Judge Colas saying our profession is with you.

Lyle Dennison is a long time reporter who is very well respected.  His “beat” is the United States Supreme Court. He writes  in SCOTUS blog about one of today’s United States Supreme Court arguements: 

Argument Preview: Sorting Out Competency

Lyle Denniston Reporter

At 10 a.m. Tuesday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing two cases — for a total of eighty minutes – on issues surrounding claims of incompetency by individuals convicted of state crimes, and the effect such claims may have on federal court review of their cases.  In the first case, Ohio’s state solicitor general, Alexandra T. Schimmer, will represent state officials, and Scott Michelman of the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C., will represent the prisoner, Sean Carter.  In the second case, the U.S. government will have ten minutes in the middle of the argument, largely to support the state officials in the cases.  Speaking for the government will be Ann O’Connell, an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.  Representing the state of Arizona in the second case will be its attorney general, Thomas C. Horne.   Speaking for the prisoner, Ernest Valencia Gonzales, will be an assistant federal public defender, Leticia Marquez, of Tucson. The full SCOTUS coverage of the case can be found at:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/argument-preview-sorting-out-competency/.

 BIPARTISAN BILL WOULD STOP LGBT DISCRIMINATION DURING JURY SELECTION PROCESS 

(Washington, D.C.) –U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Susan Collins (R-NH) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced a bipartisan bill that would prevent discrimination against LGBT citizens during the federal jury selection process. The Jury ACCESS (Access for Capable Citizens and Equality in Service Selection) Act of 2012 would amend the federal statute to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” meaning that striking jurors on that basis would be prohibited in federal courts. 

“Discriminating against a potential juror because of sexual orientation or gender identity is unacceptable, and it should not be tolerated,” Shaheen said. “Our country is founded on principles of inclusion and acceptance and the jury selection process should be no different.”

“Jury service is an important public service,” Collins said.  “Our bill would prohibit potential jurors from being dismissed for service in federal trials based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

“The jury box is intended to protect the rights of all Americans by providing a defendant with a fair hearing from a cross-section of the whole community, without discrimination,” said Whitehouse.  “This legislation will help ensure that LGBT Americans are fairly represented on juries, and I look forward to working with Senators Shaheen and Collins to move the bill forward.”

“Arbitrary and discriminatory exclusion of LGBT jurors has no place in our federal courts.  We appreciate the bipartisan leadership of Senators Shaheen, Collins and Whitehouse to help ensure every American is guaranteed the right to be judged by a jury of his or her peers,” said Allison Herwitt, Legislative Director, Human Rights Campaign.

“Extending federal jury non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation and gender identity is truly a step forward for the LGBT movement and a notable achievement for the entire LGBT community. We applaud the Senator’s efforts for bringing equality to the forefront of the judicial process,” said D’Arcy Kemnitz, Executive Director, National LGBT Bar Association.

The United States Code does prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin and economic status.  However, there is no federal prohibition on discriminating against jurors based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  Currently, California and Oregon have legislation prohibiting exclusion from jury service in state court on that basis.  Minnesota has proposed legislation that is pending. 

The bill is endorsed by the following groups: Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality Council, Third Way, National LGBT Bar Association, ACLU, Lambda Legal, Immigration Equality Action Fund, Alliance for Justice, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

A number of judges around the country will soon find on the courthouse doorsteps lawyers seeking immediate relief for election contests. Thanks to the Federal Judicial Center, there is a terrific resource available for judges.

http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/autoframe?openform&url_l=/public/home.nsf/inavgeneral?openpage&url_r=/public/home.nsf/pages/1570

The National Center for State Courts has put out a Call for Submissions for its Future Trends in State Courts publication.

This book (which is also available online) is widely read and influential in the court world.  It has often had useful articles on access issues.

So folks might want to think about offering submissions.  The call is below.

Future Trends in State Courts is an annual, peer-reviewed publication that highlights innovative practices in critical areas that are of interest to courts, and often serves as a guide for developing new initiatives and programs, and informing and supporting policy decisions.  Future Trends in State Courts is the only publication of its kind and enjoys a wide circulation among the state court community. It is distributed in hard copy and electronically.

Submissions for the 2013 edition are now being accepted. Please email abstracts of no more than 500 words to Carol Flango at cflango(at)ncsc.org. Visit the Future Trends in State Courts website at www.ncsc.org/trends  for more information.

The current issue is here.

Prior issues are here.

From Pamela Casey of the National Center for State Courts:

The National Center for State Courts began a new initiative last March to assist courts with their efforts to expand access to justice, especially for poor and low income individuals. I am pleased to represent AJA on the Advisory Committee for the initiative and to announce the launch of the new Center on Court Access to Justice for All. The Access Center, available at www.ncsc.org/atj<http://www.ncsc.org/atj>, offers resources on 15 different access to justice topics such as caseflow management and access services, the judicial role in promoting access, and triaging access services. The Access Center also has technical assistance available to help courts gain specific expertise on implementing an access to justice program, practice or service (e.g., starting a self-help center or volunteer legal services program for self-represented litigants). During the next year, the Access Center will offer Access Briefs and webinars on various access issues. I encourage you to visit the new Access Center Web site often and to take advantage of its resources and technical assistance. The Access Center is funded by the Public Welfare Foundation and also works closely with the ABA Resources Center for Access to Justice Initiatives.