– The "Kafkaesque quality" of Judge R.M. Berman and the UBC
In Reply To
A number of lawsuits have asserted that the administrative procedures violated the due process and equal protection rights of the defendants.
The decisions in those cases were a mixed bag, with the S.E.C. winning most on the grounds that any challenge to its procedures initially had to be decided through the administrative proceeding, blocking immediate access to the federal courts. Under that process, the constitutionality of the procedures would first be considered by the administrative judge, then by the five S.E.C. commissioners if there was an appeal. Only after that could a further challenge be filed in a federal court of appeals, which might give at least some deference to the agency’s interpretation of the issue.
The issue at hand is whether or not any of the rulings given by Federal judges are better suited for review by other government agencies, instead of totalitarian mandates issued by federally seated Hollywood celebrities.
Some Judges are just better suited to rule over celebrity sports hero's football pressure, and filmmaker indiscretions.
The genesis of the challenges is a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that gave the S.E.C. the option to file almost any case before an administrative judge rather than pursue it in a Federal District Court. For defendants, that means the broad discovery of evidence provided to litigants and the right to a jury trial would not be available. Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court in Manhattan said in a speech that the agency’s claim that efficiency justified greater use of its own judges to resolve complex securities cases “suggests a certain chutzpah.”