Roderick Ireland, a former Juvenile Court Judge, former Appeals Court Judge, and senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, as well as first African-American Supreme Judicial Court Justice has been nominated by newly-re-elected Governor Deval Patrick to be the Chief Justice who will succeed Chief Justice Margaret Marshall.
The Boston Herald, Boston Globe are covering this story.
For more background, here is a brief bibliography:
1. Justice Ireland’s official, online, authorized biography – of note he was former Chief Legal Counsel to the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
2. Judgepedia
3.Justice Ireland in action on Adoption of Lillian in an archived webcast of oral argument
Justice Ireland has experience in both criminal and civil law. He is well-versed in the issues facing foster children and the juvenile justice system, as well as the constitutional issues arising in criminal prosecution AND criminal defense. His experience as a jurist is the broadest of those now on the SJC bench. Further, due to his experience in Administration and Finance, he may well be uniquely well-suited to dealing with the heinous underfunding of the Judicial Branch.
The only concern I have is Justice Ireland’s age. At 65, he will have only four to five years to lead the court. I wonder whether that is enough time to put a strong stamp on the court, both from the perspective of Justice Ireland’s legacy and Gov. Patrick’s legacy. Would a younger justice–Justice Gants, for instance–have been a better long-term choice?
<
p>TedF
State House News is reporting that Ireland is already due to retire in 2014 “when he attains the mandatory retirement age if 70.” That would make him currently 66. AND, most importantly, would give Governor Patrick a chance to replace Ireland on the SJC before the expiration of teh Governor’s second term. Solves your legacy problems, no?
Well, that solves the problem of Gov. Patrick’s legacy, but not Justice Ireland’s legacy, if you see what I mean.
<
p>I do think this issue aside, this is a good pick.
<
p>TedF
Justice Ireland is a wonderful pick for Chief Justice. Having been before Justice Ireland and seen the man in action I have no doubt he will do us all proud. Just a wonderful pick—he’s non-political and will always do the right thing.
I believe you’re referring to Oliver Wendell “Larry” Holmes?
Knowing that the Herald folks will be going crazy about this.
Appointed just a year earlier in 1996. She is an immigrant from South Africa who later becam a citizen of the United States. “White” but still “African-American”.
Time to break out the vuvuzela again?
Wouldn’t she be more of an Afrikaan-American?
I’ve heard some even prefer it, especially if they’ve been here for generations or more immediately from the Carribean rather than Africa. After all we usually call the majority race in this country white rather than European-American.
The terms “negro” and “colored” began to fall out of favor (in the 1960s) largely *because” they were terms conferred upon black Americans by the largely white majority.
<
p>”Black” had a strong run (and still may come back thanks to the influx of many Caribbean people to the United States) in the 70s and 80s. (“I’m black and I’m proud.”; “Black is beautiful”; etc).
<
p>But, for the past two decades, the term African-American began to reemerge, this time used by many black Americans as their own self-referential term of choice. Just as other ethnic groups in American society historically adopted names descriptive of their families’ geographical points of origin (such as Italian-American, Irish-American, Polish-American), many blacks in America expressed their own preference for a similar term.
<
p>As society progressed, we’ve come to a cultural understanding that “we” don’t get to name “them.” Labels evolve more organically than that. The opinions, beliefs and preferences of the person labeling themselves are given top priority and usually, eventually adopted by the majority of Americans.
…unless the person him/herself was born in another part of the world (as opposed to ancestry). I tend to be more of the school that says we’re all Americans, with skin color simply being a convenient descriptive term to be used only when absolutely necessary. When I try to decide whether a term is appropriate I ask myself if it would bother me to be called the equivalent term. So if white is fine so should black be; if Caucasian is fine so should Negro be. European-American is also fine, I guess, but not often used in my experience.
You should ask youself “will it bother the person I am labeling to be called a specific term?” Yes, this is difficult, subjective, complicated and can lead to general confusion (and even unfair allegations of racism). But the best thing to do is to accept the idea that people do, and should continue to be “allowed” to, label themselves racially. I think.
…the people I’m labelling do not themselves know what I’m calling them. It’s not like I go up to somebody and say, “Hey, you’re…” and often since there are in my experience differing opinions within the group as to preference or appropriate term it’s hard to know. Hence I think labels cause more problems than they solve, especially given the example that started this conversation. Personally I tend to say black in casual contexts and African-American in more formal ones. As for me, I don’t care what I’m called among the choices of white, Caucasian or European American, just preferably not white trash, cracker, or redneck as they have negative connotations. I’m also a bit uncomfortable with Aryan because that term is used sometimes in white supremacist contexts. To be honest I really don’t give much thought to race, my own or others’, and wish to advance the time when we all judge each other “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”.
In my view, this is analogous to the long succession of terms that have been favored and then rejected to describe persons with mental, physical, and emotional challenges.
<
p>When the surrounding culture is permeated with prejudice against such a person, then whatever term is used to describe them becomes derogatory as soon as it passes into general use. The term “handicapped” was originally welcomed as preferable to “crippled”, just as “retarded” was originally welcomed as preferable to “moron” or “idiot”. Because the underlying prejudice did not change as rapidly as the vocabulary, the new terms quickly became as offensive as the words they replaced.
<
p>My mother, who grew up in the deep south, was taught by her parents to use “negro” rather than “ni**er” as a matter of courtesy. Sadly, her parents did not address the underlying racism — my mother spent her lifetime coming to grips with her racism, even as she dutifully moved from “negro” to “colored” to “black”.
<
p>When we truly address the underlying prejudice, the vocabulary will follow. The use of the “n-word”, currently acceptable only within the black community itself, may conceivably return to widespread acceptability as we redefine its connotation by solving the underlying racism of our culture.
<
p>I think we have an example in the evolution of “queer”.
The “remedy” seems to be to go over politically correct. Therefore blind becomes visually impaired or visually challenged, even though those terms could also describe someone who simply requires glasses or contacts. Short becomes vertically challenged. Though there are obvious inconveniences there is nothing inherently wrong from a judgemental or moral standpoint with being either blind or short. I think tone of voice and context matter at least as much as the words themselves. I’m glad dumb has given way to mute though since the former has another meaning with a very negative connotation.
<
p>I think Jesse Jackson once said of those of the lower classes, “We’ve called them poor; we’ve called them needy; we’ve called them lower class; we’ve called them economically disadvantaged. They’ve developed quite a vocabulary yet we have not given them the opportunities they need.”
…he is a tremendous scholar and a renowned expert in law related to juveniles. A wonderful pick, exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for in doing all the work for Governor Patrick this season.
Any word on who might replace ireland as associate justice?
BTW – Dan Winslow put out a nice press release praising the pick, based on his own experience with him.
…and she is the Chief Justice whose retirement is creating this vacancy.
Rep-Elect – and BMGer Winslow’s thoughtful comments are being carried by several newspapers