Pirozzi
PIROZZI THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR SUPERIOR COURT: STATE BAR’S EVALUATION COMMISSION BOTH PARTISAN AND INCORRECT
By
Ken Eliasberg
I was both surprised and delighted when Governor Schwarzenegger demonstrated the good judgment to appoint Elia Pirozzi to the San Bernardino County Superior Court. I was surprised because Pirozzi, a good friend of mine, is a “conservative,” and the Governor has been almost careening left since his propositions were so soundly thrashed last year. I was delighted because Pirozzi is the perfect choice for such an appointment. Why? Because he is just what one would want in a Judge, smart, thoughtful, poised, patient, and careful. In addition, he has two qualities that are all too infrequently found today in many who aspire to leadership; he has the intelligence to formulate a conviction and the courage to act on it. Pirozzi is a leader, and, again, leaders are in short supply today.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that I was, to say the least, disappointed in the conclusion reached by the State Bar’s Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission that Pirozzi was “not qualified.” Indeed, according to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, the Commission gave Pirozzi the “lowest of four possible ratings this year.” Unfortunately, in accordance with the State Bar’s established rules and regulations, the Commission’s findings are cloaked in secrecy. I think that this is unfortunate; the Public, in general, and the appointee, in particular, should be apprised of just why he is being so characterized. After all, an “unqualified” finding goes right to the heart of the appointee’s character and competence, and, is thus defamatory in nature. And, while I can, to a limited extent, understand the State Bar’s desire to have decisions of this sort made in confidence, I think, on balance, the interests of the public (not to mention the reputation of the appointee) outweigh such privacy concerns.
In my opinion, Pirozzi has been defamed, and has been so treated without the courtesy of the right to confront his critics. Moreover, the Public has been deprived of their right to independently evaluate the qualifications of one who might be called upon to play a very important role in their lives. I know that I want to know about a Judge’s background—i.e. where he went to law school, how he did there, what was his reputation as an attorney, and, most of all, I want to know a judge’s heart (i.e. how he deals with matters of great sensitivity, such as abortion, capital punishment, etc., etc.). Indeed, since these appointees will be running for re-election at some time in the future in order for them to continue on the bench, the public should know whether to vote for him. And, if I am going to be called on to vote for a guy who the State Bar’s Commission has labeled “unqualified,” I want to know the basis on which the Commission reached such a conclusion. On a political level, I regard such kangaroo court procedures as violative of a candidate’s due process rights; on a personal level, I regard such a behind-closed-doors decision as cowardly. That is, if you are going to defame me, at least have the courage to look me in the eye when you do it.
Also, and until proven to otherwise be the case, I strongly believe that Pirozzi has been so labeled not because of his legal qualifications or judicial temperament but because of his politics. Judge Pirozzi is a conservative (and a highly principled one at that). I don’t know too many finer men than Elia Pirozzi. Nor do I know too many any better qualified to serve on the bench. In saying this I must tell you that I had mixed feelings about Pirozzi ascending to the bench. Why? Because he was a great conservative leader, and they are in short supply. I came to peace with the decision by rationalizing that the Party’s loss was the State’s gain.
I know Elia Pirozzi, and I unhesitatingly vouch for both his character and competence. Indeed, I did just that when I furnished a reference to this effect to the State Bar in connection with Judge Pirozzi’s being originally considered for a position on the bench. And I would not hesitate to do so again if the situation called for it. And, if I’m missing something, I’d like to know what that is. Why? Because I’m not endorsing Pirozzi because he’s a dear friend of mine; I’m endorsing him because I don’t know a better man for the job. And, if I’m wrong, I’d like to know why. Moreover, I believe that I am entitled to know why. Finally, I believe all of us are entitled to this kind of information, particularly because we are we going to be called on to vote for a Judge who has been determined to be “unqualified.” Please, come out of the closet and tell me why, particularly since it flies in the face of everything that I know about this man. Until you do, forgive me if I decide that the Commission is both “unqualified” and disingenuous and cowardly to boot. Pirozzi will make a damn good judge, and I know that he will make his judicial determinations based on legal, not political, considerations. I am profoundly disappointed in the State Bar Commission’s decision, and I am equally disappointed in the secretive manner in which they arrived at it. And, until I am informed to the contrary, I shall continue to believe that their decision was based on political partisanship rather than on the basis of Pirozzi’s legal qualifications.