Judge LaSalle and the Left’s Performative Politics

Governor Hochul has nominated Brooklyn Judge Hector LaSalle for New York’s Chief Justice, headlining this as the first Latino in that post.

Such ethnicization is cringeworthy. It’s great that previously disadvantaged minorities have entered the mainstream. But that’s the point: a judge who happens to be Latino is mainstream now, it shouldn’t even be remarked upon. Hochul’s making this the appointment’s centerpiece is identity politics pandering that actually detracts from the judge’s capabilities and virtues. (BTW, I don’t say “Latinx.” Lefties made up that word as yet another way for them to posture as more advanced and with-it. No people to whom the word supposedly applies call themselves that. But maybe “Latinx” is already dropping out of use.)

I had the same problem with President Biden appointing Judge Jackson. A great choice, whose greatness was undermined by his having previously pledged to appoint a Black woman. Making it seem as though Jackson was merely the best available Black woman — not the best person, period.

Anyhow, LaSalle’s ethnicity is not enough to make “progressives” love his nomination; they are lining up in opposition, slamming him as anti-union, anti-abortion, anti due process, et cetera. Making this a cri de coeur of principle. Or so it might seem. What it really is is performative politics. The left just loves to posture as more advanced, enlightened, and indeed of course “progressive.” (That is the heart of “cancel culture,” trying to make themselves feel morally superior, by casting into outer darkness anyone not in lockstep with their catechism.)

But what really makes this LaSalle story one of performative politics is that there’s no there there. Ginned up to create the appearance of something to mount a high horse of umbrage about. They’ve combed through his hundreds of judicial decisions and picked out a few that went against unions, or abortion rights, or due process claimants — as if they should win every case — regardless of the law!

An Albany Law School professor has labelled this cherry-picking indictment of LaSalle’s record “absurd.” Former Chief Judge Lippman has chimed in based on a broad review of LaSalle’s extensive record of decisions, arguing that what really characterizes it is conscientious application of the law, precedent, and proper legal principles. Which is what a judge is supposed to do. Not be a warrior for a particular point of view.

I recall my own 1977 interview to be a PSC administrative law judge. The chief judge pointedly took note of my reputation as a particularly zealous advocate, as staff counsel, battling the utility companies in our proceedings. I responded that that was my job. And that I understood the ALJ position was different. That judges must be impartial, not letting personal opinions color their decisions.

I got the job.

(Note: Nothing here should be taken as saying the left is worse than the right. Today’s Republican right is vastly more reprehensible — their politics almost all performative.)

12 Responses to “Judge LaSalle and the Left’s Performative Politics”

  1. Robyn Blumner Says:

    Great piece! I totally agree with you on this. Thank you for writing it.

    Robyn E. Blumner President and CEO, Center for Inquiry Executive Director, Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science RBlumner@centerforinquiry.org

    The Center for Inquiry strives to foster a secular society based on reason, science, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. Our vision is a world where people value evidence and critical thinking, where superstition and prejudice subside, and where science and compassion guide public policy.

  2. Lee Says:

    A person can comb through the nominee’s hundreds of judicial decisions and note that some went against unions, or abortion rights, or due process claimants. If a person doesn’t like what they see then I urge them to let the politicians know. This is representative democracy in its purest form!

    All that crap attributing this to posturing, superiority complex, etc. is from the playbook of those politicians and talking heads whom you regularly trash. This playbook distracts us from the actual issues of abortion, unions, and due process where, apparently, the talking head doesn’t feel that they can win on the merits. I look forward to the reprise of the majority of your writings, where you stay out of this name-calling distraction.

  3. rationaloptimist Says:

    Lee, this has nothing to do with the merits of issues like abortion, unions, etc. It has to do with creating controversy dishonestly by distorting a judge’s record. The “name-calling” here is that practiced by the “progressives” who are calling Judge LaSalle “anti-abortion,” “anti-union,” etc, with no valid basis. Merely because they love having targets they can thusly demonize.

  4. Lee Says:

    Can you give an example court opinion where critics have reservations about the nominee but you do not?

  5. rationaloptimist Says:

    There’s been much focus on the Evergreen case. From what I’ve read, the “pro-abortion” side had a very weak case from a legal standpoint, and their losing in court was predictable. Such a case certainly does not show a judge is “anti-abortion.”

  6. Lee Says:

    I’ve been sitting on the sidelines on this issue, depending upon reliable sources such as you to present and argue the merits, but not doing the research myself. If I find some time, I’ll look into Evergreen. (If you find the time to research the details and present them here … count me among thankful!)

  7. rationaloptimist Says:

    There’s a piece in today’s T-U discussing Evergreen

  8. Lee Says:

    Thank you for the pointer to the article; I also spent a little while searching the web. I found a number of articles arguing that it was wrong to criticize LaSalle regarding Evergreen but, interestingly, I found no articles quoting people who criticized LaSalle regarding Evergreen. Do you happen to know where I might find a quote of a person criticizing LaSalle regarding Evergreen?

  9. frankzollo Says:

    I would like to (semi-facetiously) suggest a 20-year moratorium on appointing appellate judicial candidates with backgrounds as prosecutors. We need many more judges with criminal defense, public interest, and environmental law backgrounds.

  10. Lee Says:

    Ah, I found the “performative politics” “moral superiority” “cancel culture” “attack” by “progressives” on LaSalle regarding Evergreen, here.

    In 2010, the New York City Council held hearings into CPCs [crisis pregnancy centers] and determined that one of them, “Expectant Mother Care,” was practicing medicine without a license. On the basis of that finding, the New York Attorney General served it with a subpoena to learn more about its operations.

    Justice LaSalle intervened to shield the CPC from the application of health care licensing laws. The court held across the board that the Attorney General could not see the documents before the court itself reviewed them. But for some documents it went even further. The opinion stated that the Attorney General could not get the “advertisements and promotional literature, brochures and pamphlets that the CPC provided or disseminated to the public in New York State,” or the list of the CPC’s funders, even after court review. The opinion Justice LaSalle joined concluded that that information was not important or relevant enough to the Attorney General’s investigation to require disclosure, even to the court.

    The decision is shocking. We recognize the need to protect the First Amendment right to speak and assemble. This might have justified court review of sensitive documents, like a list of funders. But it provides no justification for concluding that the CPC’s promotional materials or funders were not relevant to an investigation of the CPC’s fraudulent activities. After all, it was precisely through its promotional literature, which someone paid for, that the CPC engaged in harmful conduct.

    You are free to argue an opinion to the contrary — and I urge you to do so if you have one because your perspective is frequently enlightening. However, I am not seeing the evidence of “performative politics,” “cancel culture,” etc. that critics claim are in play here.

  11. rationaloptimist Says:

    LaSalle here joined in a unanimous court opinion. Theperformative politics I was referring to is on the part of political forces trying to demonize LaSalle on the basis of a few rulings out of many hundreds.

  12. Lee Says:

    At the risk of repeating arguments already made: criticizing government actions and government figures one objects to is a founding principle of democracy, as in the “right to petition government for redress of grievances.”

    You are free to argue that you disagree on the details or that the remainder of the evidence tips the scales the other way, and I am thankful when you do. However, in this case I find the argument — that those with whom you disagree are out to “demonize,” are “performative,” etc. — weakens the arguments that you make regarding the details or balance.

Leave a comment