Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dan Collins

Dan Collins

Posted: April 14, 2010 09:44 AM

Judge Jed Rakoff Belongs on the Supreme Court

What's Your Reaction:

President Obama and the Democrats have made an overhaul of Wall Street their No. 1 legislative priority. The president and his party also say they're ready to carry the battle against corporate greed and excess into the Senate hearing room where Obama's Supreme Court nominee will be peppered with questions from left and right.

"I think what people are going to do is say, 'Do you share our concern about the fact that the court always seems to side with the big corporate interests against the average American?'" Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy told Politico. "I think there's going to be more of the public realizing they really do have a stake in who's on the Supreme Court."

If all of this is anything more than political posturing, the president's choice for the high court should be a no-brainer: Obama should put Jed Rakoff on the high court.

The 66-year-old federal jurist shocked the legal and financial worlds last year by rejecting a $33 million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Bank of America. The bank had purchased Merrill Lynch without telling its shareholders that executives of the ailing brokerage were paid $3.6 billion in bonuses shortly before the takeover was announced.

The common-sense wisdom of Rakoff's ruling resonated with a public infuriated with billion-dollar bonuses and bailouts. The SEC signed off on a deal in which the bank agreed to pay $33 million (in shareholder money) for concealing the bonus payments from the shareholders. In effect, the victims were being punished, a topsy-turvy outcome fairly typical of the SEC's handling of wrongdoing by large corporations in cases like these.

"Oscar Wilde once famously said that a cynic is someone 'who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing,'" Rakoff wrote.

The proposed consent judgment in this case suggests a rather cynical relationship between the parties: the S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger; the Bank's management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators. And all this is done at the expense, not only of the shareholders, but also of the truth.

Last month, Rakoff reluctantly agreed to accept a $150 million settlement, calling it "half-baked justice." Despite his lack of enthusiasm for the deal, the judge did find a hero, noting that the merger between the bank and Merrill could have been a "bank-destroying disaster if the U.S. taxpayer had not saved the day."

Besides having that too-rare sympathy for the average American and the courage to take on the mega-powers of government and Wall Street, Rakoff is fully qualified for the high court, both personally and professionally.

Some of his past decisions won't have most Republicans turning cartwheels. Since he was named to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1995, Rakoff has built a judicial resume that includes overturning the federal death penalty (reversed on appeal), thumbing his judicial nose at federal sentencing guidelines, and forcing the Pentagon to reveal the names and nationalities of hundreds of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay.

But his personal life is impeccable. The judge is a workaholic who neither smokes nor drinks, according to friends and colleagues. He enjoys Broadway show tunes and once dreamed of becoming a lyricist. The judge and his wife of 35 years, Ann, have three daughters and enjoy ballroom dancing.

And unlike a certain Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who shall remain nameless, if Rakoff tells you he'll be guided by legal precedent, you can count on it.

Lawyers who know Rakoff mention three qualities that mark his style as a jurist: intelligence, independence and a thoroughness that can turn the resolution of an apparently routine legal question into a day-long hearing.

The judge is admired for legal opinions filled with sharp writing and laced with wit. His legal hero is Benjamin Cardozo, the Supreme Court justice from New York whose lofty reputation rests partly on his writing skill.

He was born in Philadelphia and, after graduating from Swarthmore in 1964, attended Oxford and Harvard Law School. According to friends and colleagues, he arrived in New York City in 1970 with a dual dream: He would work as a lawyer by day and by night write the book for a musical that would take Broadway by storm.

The law won out. He soon joined the prestigious U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan, where he worked as a prosecutor for seven years, including two as chief of the securities fraud unit. That paved the way for a career in private practice that made him one of the top securities lawyers in the U.S. (He has written a number of books and more than 100 articles).

This is the right time for a Supreme Court justice whose strong suit is securities law, and whose history shows that he's not afraid to put that enormous expertise to use on the side of the people.

 
President Obama and the Democrats have made an overhaul of Wall Street their No. 1 legislative priority. The president and his party also say they're ready to carry the battle against corporate greed ...
President Obama and the Democrats have made an overhaul of Wall Street their No. 1 legislative priority. The president and his party also say they're ready to carry the battle against corporate greed ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
11:33 AM on 04/15/2010
Sounds like a good man and someone who is very well-qualified for the Court. However, at 66, he is too old -- not because there is anything wrong with being that age (which i am fast approaching myself), but because Obama needs to leave a liberal imprint on the Court that will last for generations. Personally, I would like to see him appoint someone like our soon to be former Michigan governor, Jennifer Granholm. It's certainly not her fault that the American auto industry (and as a result, the State of Michigan) tanked during her tenure as Governor, she's a Harvard Law Grad and former Michigan Attorney General, she's a good solid liberal, she's only 50, and she's pretty and charismatic, to boot!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elan4444
11:16 PM on 04/14/2010
Thanks for reminding us about this great citizen. Jed has my vote! If I could!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:27 PM on 04/14/2010
66 is too old. We need someone who can spend a good portion of their lifetime on the court as a progressive voice.
07:31 AM on 04/15/2010
The retiring Justice Stevens is soon going to 90 years old and there are others on the court over 80. In that exclusive club Rakoff could well be serving for 20 years. That is a very long time to serve.

Personally, I'd rather have an elderly person with 20 good years than some young person laking experience both in life and in law hanging around for 40 years signing off on Roberts decisions.
05:36 PM on 04/14/2010
And rhyming with Otto E Rotocism won't help win serious debate
03:44 PM on 04/14/2010
Too old. I want someone who's on our side and who's going to be around for 40 years or so.
04:27 PM on 04/14/2010
No doubt the prez feels the same way.
Too bad he isn't 10 years younger! He sounds terrific!
03:13 PM on 04/14/2010
I am less impressed after reading the final reference that follows the above article. Jed Rakoff is the federal judge referred to.

LEGAL
Judge Throws Out Suit Against Moody’s and S.&P.
April 1, 2010, 5:08 PM

A federal judge in Manhattan threw out a class-action lawsuit accusing the ratings agencies Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s of defrauding investors about the safety of $63.4 billion of mortgage debt, Reuters reports.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeLoup
Res ipsa loquitur, ergo tace!
09:39 AM on 04/29/2010
Please read the judgment in its entirety. Judge Rakoff followed the law, but it was clear (well, at least to me) that he was less than pleased to reach the decision he rendered.

The truth of the matter is that Congress is the venue to address the rating agencies fundamental problems. Unless, of course, a prosecutor with kahunas decide that a certain behavior described in the link below should be prosecuted:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/reverse-engineering-ratings/
03:11 PM on 04/14/2010
Age cannot be the overriding factor. There are plenty of deaths under sixty. Judge Ratoff is definitely someone who should be considered for the Supreme Court. He would put to shame all those who would harm the peoples interests, and well being.
02:26 PM on 04/14/2010
I want someone who'll be there a long time, but I also want someone with life experience (age). Maybe someone in their 50s? But the most important thing to me is someone who isn't a brain dead hive-think conservative or, almost as bad, a moderate. How's this guy's health? if he's gonna live to 90 on the court-great.
08:30 AM on 04/15/2010
While I agree about needing the nominee to have a good degree of life experience, it's my opinion that some people can, and do, have that good life experience, by the time they are in their mid 40's. Along with having the good health and good health habits. I also like this Judge actually standing up for the people, along with having what looks like, some old fashioned common sense. I too, would like it better, if he were a bit younger, but he could very well live and serve on the court, for close to 30 yrs.
photo
Bados
You know.... the beach cruiser.
02:20 PM on 04/14/2010
Judge Joe Brown
photo
Bados
You know.... the beach cruiser.
02:16 PM on 04/14/2010
Judge Judy.
What to old?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlueZoo
Independent voter, Independent thinker!
02:01 PM on 04/14/2010
Great choice but doesn't have a chance in hell. The people on the Judiciary Committee won't let anyone involved in denigrating Wall Street be on the Court. The Senators are in Wall Street's pockets and will vote against anyone who came down against the banks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rcozad
Manufacturers Representative Electronics Industry
01:45 PM on 04/14/2010
Biggest reason not to put him on the court ....he is 66 years old.
02:21 PM on 04/14/2010
While ageism should have no place in our decision, putting someone younger on the court would mean a longer time with a more liberal jurist (probably).
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joe The Nerd Ferraro
Group IQ is inversely proportional to group size.
01:04 PM on 04/14/2010
Go for Dr. Cornel West.
01:28 PM on 04/14/2010
I'll stick with Rakoff thanks
photo
Bados
You know.... the beach cruiser.
02:17 PM on 04/14/2010
What do you have against Dr West?
Is it the hair?
03:04 PM on 04/14/2010
I also was thinking of Dr. West. He would be a good choice. He's smart, confident, and will work for the people’s interests.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joe The Nerd Ferraro
Group IQ is inversely proportional to group size.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
antaeus
Marriage Equality Is Here
12:57 PM on 04/14/2010
Amazing man. Any judge who quotes Wilde is alright by me.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:23 PM on 04/14/2010
He can get Stevens' slot and
Warren will follow when Ginsburg retires.
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
05:15 PM on 04/14/2010
I like it!