Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Cover-Up Prone Courts Won’T Do

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided former U.S. District Court reporter Kathryn Blankenship will not get her own day in court.

Blankenship claims she was fired from her job because she was the source of misconduct allegations against Judge Alan McDonald of Yakima. The Supreme Court didn’t say why it rejected Blankenship’s petition but we can assume it agreed with U.S.

Solicitor General Seth Waxman’s argument that “Congress has permitted the judicial branch to manage its own personnel matters.” This means federal court employees have less recourse than a clerk for the state of Arkansas. The same court that denied Blankenship allowed Paula Jones’ lawsuit against President Bill Clinton.

Without getting into whether Blankenship was wronged, the allegations do sketch a portrait of a good-old-boys club: Blankenship was subpoenaed in a wrongful termination case. She did not want to testify. The chief judge of the Eastern District at the time, Justin Quackenbush, assured confidentiality. Blankenship went on to support a fired clerk’s accusations, including details about disparaging notes that were passed between Judge McDonald and his chief clerk, Pam Posada. The next day, McDonald confronted Blankenship about her testimony. Less than a year later, Blankenship was fired after she refused to accept a demotion.

Here is what’s troubling:

* The judiciary did nothing about the 1994 claims of note passing. Only after a recent Spokesman-Review article did the local district forward information to the 9th Circuit for review.

* The judiciary did nothing about the breach of confidentiality that put Blankenship in McDonald’s cross hairs.

* The judiciary did nothing about claims McDonald edited court transcripts.

It is now up to the 9th Circuit’s Judicial Council to investigate McDonald and deliver a public report that can begin to restore confidence in the Eastern District. In the meantime, U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde should allow a full debate in his House committee on the merits of the judiciary’s exemption from civil rights laws. During the impeachment of President Clinton, Hyde said, “These are public acts, and when committed by the chief law enforcement officer of the land, the one who appoints the attorney general and nominates the judiciary, these do become concerns of Congress.”

So, why the free pass for the judiciary itself? Clinton got Kenneth Starr. McDonald gets the brethren.