Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Friday, November 9, 2018

 

Page 3

 

Retired Justice Werdegar Tells How It Was, How It Is

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

—staff photograph

Former Los Angeles Times Editor-at-Large/columnist Jim Newton, now a lecturer at UCLA, interviews former California Supreme Court Justice Kathryn Werdegar at a session of the California Supreme Court Historical Society.

 

Former California Supreme Court Justice Kathryn Werdegar, during an interview before the California Supreme Court Historical Society, has contrasted the past with today’s realities, recalling being the only female on the 19-member First District Court of Appeal when appointed to it in 1991 and being one of four women on the seven-member state high court when she retired last year.

The interview, which took place Wednesday night in the auditorium at the Los Angeles Central Library, was conducted by former Los Angeles Times Editor-at-Large Jim Newton, who now teaches at UCLA.

Werdegar, who left the court Aug. 31, 2017—and has still not been replaced by Gov. Jerry Brown—noted, in responding to a question from Newton concerning initiatives, that the instrument was created in California “more than 100 years ago” as a “reform measure.” It sprang, she said, from “a populist movement to give the people a voice” and, in particular, to thwart the control the railroads then held over state government.

Now, by contrast, she continued, special interests—such as the railroad companies had been in the early 1900s—are frequently the ones spearheading initiatives.

“We’re often asked to vote on things we shouldn’t be thinking about,” Werdegar commented, saying that initiatives sometimes concern matters that should be dealt with by legislators.

Judicial Appointments

Another contrast the former jurist discussed was in the approaches to judicial appointments taken by past governors and the present one,

Werdegar recalled that Gov. George Deukmejian (now deceased), held the view that an initial judicial appointment of a lawyer—quite often a deputy district attorney, she noted—should be to the Municipal Court, with the appointee working his or her way up the ladder, by demonstrating ability.

Gov. Pete Wilson broke away from rigid rules, she said.

(When appointed to the Court of Appeal, Werdegar had not served as a trial court judge; she was a research attorney for California Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli. In 1994, Wilson appointed Werdegar, his onetime classmate at Boalt Hall, to succeed Panelli.)

 Gov. Gray Davis’s once proclaimed that any judge he appointed should adhere to his sentiments “or resign.” Werdegar recalled a political cartoon depicting a seven-member judicial panel with the face of each blacked-robed member being that of Davis.

She did not allude to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s appointments.

Werdegar did note that when she left the Supreme Court, she had “three new colleagues” with no judicial experience, referring to Goodwin H. Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, and Leondra R. Kruger, all appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown. She said the three latest appointees “are academics, really.”

‘Complete Mix’

Questioned by Newton as to whether judges who have been serving in the trenches for long periods resent newcomers being appointed to appellate posts, Werdegar declined to comment, but said that on the Supreme Court, “You want to have a complete mix.”

She advised that a former colleague of her on that court, Marvin Baxter, “was a farmer.” (He had also been a lawyer, gubernatorial appointments secretary, and a Court of Appeal justice.)

Werdegar continued:

“You don’t want all the same. You don’t want all D.A.s, and you don’t want all professors.”

Chief Justices

Werdegar served under three chief justices. In response to a query from Newton, she assessed each.

Malcolm Lucas (now deceased) was “right out of central casting,” she said, acknowledging the observation was not an original one. He looked distinguished, Werdegar remarked.

She recalled his “wry sense of humor” and termed him “a true gentleman.”

Ronald M. George, Werdegar related, had “high energy.” She recited that he was the force behind consolidation of the municipal courts and superior courts, as well as state funding of trial courts, crediting him with being “an administrative visionary.”

She related that in his administrative role, he often needed to present the judiciary’s view to the Legislature—a diminishing portion of its members being attorneys. Werdegar said George’s perception was that some legislators “wouldn’t know the difference between the judiciary and the DMV.”

Of the current chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Werdegar said:

“She’s gracious, she’s articulate, she’s poised.”

Criticism of Kavanaugh

Werdegar’s only harsh words were for Brett M. Kavanaugh, confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Oct. 6 as a justice of the United States Supreme Court by a vote of 50-48. She accused him of uttering remarks at his confirmation hearing that were “immoderate and intemperate.”

The speaker said Kavanaugh “made it very clear where he stands” on various issues, transgressing, absent future recusals, the prohibition on a nominee signaling what judicial stances he or she might take in the future.

An allegation had been raised by Stanford Professor Christine Blasey Ford of sexual misconduct on his part 35 years earlier—which Kavanaugh vehemently denied—with allegations by other women following. Watching the confirmation hearings, Werdegar said, was “painful.”

But controversies in connection with U.S. Supreme Court justices are nothing new, she observed, recalling billboards (in the 1950s) calling for the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren based on expansive constitutional interpretations.

Werdegar and Newton were introduced by former U.S. District Court Judge Margaret Morrow, now president and CEO of Public Counsel, a pro bono public interest law firm, which co-sponsored the event.

 

Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company