Grassley Urges U.S. Courts to Better Prepare for Funding Cuts

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wants the federal courts to come up with a more comprehensive plan for how to absorb major funding cuts triggered by the Budget Control Act of 2011, better known as sequestration or the “fiscal cliff.”

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts sent an October 2 analysis to Senate Judiciary Committee members detailing how the 8.2 percent across-the-board cuts would strip $555 million from the courts and would be "devastating."

Unless Congress and the White House resolve the stalemate over the country's budget woes, those cuts could mean layoffs of one out of every three court staff, suspended pay to private attorneys, significant cuts to court security, and a suspension of pay for jurors, the analysis said.

But Grassley, the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Judge Thomas Hogan, director of the A.O., asking for a more comprehensive plan that incorporates other operational expenses, such as travel and conferences.

Grassley criticized the courts earlier this year for spending more than $1 million for a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit conference in Hawaii. He said in a statement Thursday that he would like to see those types of gatherings cut before layoffs and court closings.

“The entire federal government is going to be absorbing some difficult cost saving measures. But, it’s disappointing that the federal judiciary outlined draconian measures in a vague email instead of providing a comprehensive plan,” Grassley said in a statement. “It seems to present a Chicken Little mentality without much effort and forethought into avoiding major disruptions.”

The Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees are working through the budgets to prepare as best they can for cuts, and the federal courts have been taking cost-cutting measures that included eliminating 1,100 positions, said courts spokesman Charles Hall.

Grassley has asked the A.O. to respond to his letter by December 4.

Comments

[Rebelready]

Um Mr. John Q. Public re your patently incorrect statement "That you have failed so far suggests that members of the Congress believe that their constituents -- We, the People -- don't want anything changed."

The corrupt Congress does nothing to correct the VERY Corrupt US Courts; they habitually ignore presentations by Americans regarding the fraud and federal law violations that are carried by tax paid public servants in these courts, by the sham Circuit Executive Offices and by the Administrative Offices of the US Courts. Dereliction of duty by the US Congress does not determine the will of the people. SAVE MONEY AND CLOSE ALL THE LOWER COURTS - THEY ARE MOB FAMILIES VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS. THEY STEAL LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY THROUGH COURT DOCUMENTS RENDERED WITH PATENTLY FALSE STATEMENTS, PERVERSION OF LAW AND FACT, AND PURPOSEFUL DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

[John Q Public]

Umm, Mr. McKinney, federal judges don't run for office, so the plaintiffs' bar can't be blamed for what the judges do (I have no data, but anecdotal evidence suggests to me that very few plaintiffs' lawyers become federal judges; these seem more commonly to be drawn from the ranks of the Department of Justice and the insurance defense bar).

As you have surely heard, Congress passes laws; when companies hurt people in violation of those laws lawsuits are brought. I am fully in agreement that the current state of the law permits class action lawsuits that benefit nobody but the lawyers, but those lawyers are acting fully consistently with the law. Putting them in jail would solve nothing (though it would of course prompt more well-founded actions, this time for violations of civil rights.)

The solution of course is for you and your organization to persuade Congress to change the rules. That you have failed so far suggests that members of the Congress believe that their constituents -- We, the People -- don't want anything changed.

[Darren McKinney]

Our society has grown far too litigious these past 40 years, as the plaintiffs' bar has generously contributed to the campaigns of judges and policymakers while otherwise filling billboards, radio and cable television with ads that tempt uninjured opportunists to front bogus, costly lawsuits.

If federal and state judges want to stretch their budgets, they should start by summarily dismissing the vast bulk of intelligence-insulting shareholder and consumer litigation. Finding in contempt a few particularly parasitic plaintiffs' lawyers and showing them into a jail cell for several days for repeatedly wasting the court's time with pathetic nonsense would also send a necessary signal that docket space is neither infinite nor to be trifled with by racketeering shysters.

-Darren McKinney, American Tort Reform Association, Washington, D.C.