Thanks Steve - I agree. Before the vote for the War in Iraq we lobbied Ron hard and I could of sworn that he was going to vote for war. I was wrong. I think Ron maintains a poker face in order get good feed back. Ron's last visit to Bend it appeared that he was more interested in bipartisanship than real Health Care Reform. We shall see.

The best, and most qualified person should be hired for the job. It should'be be a woman or minority just because.

I practice in Mult Co. and can vouch for four of those names. I would personally love to see Steve Wax and Michael Simon on the federal bench. Two brilliant liberals, especially Wax. Balmer and Kantor are strong. Don't know Rasmussen.

If seven women and minorities on the selection committee declined to vote for women or minority candidates, I don't hold Wyden responsible. Now if he doesn't vote for public option, there will be hell to pay!

Never been a huge fan of Ron's since his vote for the Trident missile, before many of you were born, but I have voted for him since his primary with DeFazio. I still wish DeFazio had won, but maybe he will run for Governor. Early on Wyden appointed Ancer Haggerty and Ann Aiken to the federal bench and that went a long way with me. Each were legends in their respective communities and their symbolism was enormous. The results of this selection committee annoys me a LOT because we had two chances to add more diversity to the lily white Oregon judiciary. But I guess I agree with Steve who I wish were my other senator right now. Wyden appointed plenty of the right people to the committee. They voted for the white guys, not him. At least he tried to mix it up, but he can't force women and minorities to vote against white candidates if they are truly outstanding candidates.

Off topic I know, but Steve Novick should run for Governor. Please Steve!

Before everyone let's Ronnie off the hook, do we know if the women he appointed to the selection committee were the corporate Republicans he seems so fond of? I would like to know if he selected women who were pre-disposed to prefer male candidates before I give him a pass.

I know, nsf.

The four women he appointed to the selection committee were members of Oregon Women Lawyers, so if they weren't the type who would vote for women, OWL only has themselves to blame. Secretary of State Kate Brown set up a meeting with Wyden's chief of staff and OWL to talk about the selection process and he asked them for names to put on the committee. He took four of their suggested women attorneys. I don't think anyone has ever given OWLs or any other single groups four slots on one judicial selection committee. I wish he had given OR Trial lawyers four slots! Where's the love, Ron?

Wyden is the Senator, if he didn't like the results he doesn't have to take them. And WWeek reported early in the process that Balmer and Simon were the front-runners, so it seems diversity never had a chance. But I love that another straight white guy is the one supporting Wyden's bona fides for diversity.

Well, I disagree with Jason above that anyone is making an issue of qualifications being trumped by minority status. Diversity can only be achieved with intention. There was none in this selection.

Also, I don't find it surprising that Novick, a white male, has no disagreement with the selection entirely made up of white males. Privilege and power preserves itself.

Good for you, Steve! I see nothing wrong with a deliberative process.

There is no question that the 5 people selected are highly qualified. But I take offense to the notion that because the committee was populated with diversity that absolves the Senators of any responsibility for the outcome. Was the Committee specifically charged to provide a list that represented the diversity of this community and the constituency these judges would serve? Maybe, but I have seen no evidence of that. And, with all due respect to the people on the committee, many of whom I don't know, the notion act that a woman or minority must mean that they would "see the woman's/minority's point of view" is incredibly antiquted thinking.

If we have the facts correctly we know:

-The selection committee was a diverse group; -The qualifications of the nominees are not in dispute; -No one has come forward with a name of minority or woman condidate that feels that they were treated unfairly in this process.

It seems to me that the more constructive path here is to cultivate greater diversity in the legal profession as a whole and not to place unwarranted blame on Ron.

I didn't even know there was a controversy. C'mon, Steve, keep quite and most won't notice. It's when you get defensive publicly that it becomes an issue.

Was Ann Aiken really that qualified at the time she was appointed or was it the Goldschmidt Democrat connections?

FOr that matter, was Wyden really qualified when he ran for congress, or was he sucking up to senior citizens and promising everything to liberals that he then took over a decade to actually vote for?

Oh, well, he's a politician, and a fairly good one. You're our guy, Ron!

Your obsession with skin color is disturbing.

As a member of the advisory committee appointed by Senators Wyden and Merkley, it's disturbing that people without knowledge of the process draw conclusions about the efforts to recruit candidates, the deliberative nature of the process, and the sensitivity to the issue of diversity.
For the record, Senator Wyden not only recommended the first person of color to the federal district court in Oregon, but has also recommended more women who have been appointed to the federal bench than any other US Senator (probably more than any of the previous senators combined). Great efforts were made to encourage women and minorities to apply for these positions. Greater efforts will likely be made in the future. Achieving diversity on the bench is an important consideration. It is not the only consideration.
The only way that an advisory process like this can be useful is to guarantee that candid discussions will remain confidential. That is frustrating for some people. But without confidentiality both committee members and those who provide input on candidates would be reluctant to raise issues of concern. I can assure Not So Fast that the women lawyers on the committee were not Republican corporate lawyers. And jonnic, if WW is your source for information on this, I suggest you get a better source. There were no front runners and nobody had the inside track. Neither I nor any of the other advisory committee members would have agree to serve on the committee if it had been wired.

Diversity is a relative concept. Steven Wax, for instance, can't help being a white guy, but he has gone out of his way to volunteer to defend prisoners at Guantanamo (before it was popular!). That's the kind of attention to power imbalances that can give a judge a lot of insight into the equities in cases before the court.

A diverse panel picked the most qualified candidates, in an apparently color-blind manner. We shouldn't use skin color as a substitute for a more careful analysis of whether the person has the right character, including attention to the power imbalances of the parties before the court, for the court. That kind of thinking gets you Justice Thomas.

One of the women on Wyden's selection committee (I swore not to divulge) told me that Wyden's person asked the committee on several occasions to send them a diverse list of names. According to her, the women just didn't come close to the caliber of Kantor and the rest.

For what it's worth, Carol.

I do agree that it is antiquated thinking to believe that just because someone is a woman or a minority they will understand the need for diversity, or really believe in it. But according to my source, many or all of the women on Wyden's committee were given to Wyden by Oregon Women Lawyers, so you would expect them to only give Wyden names of people who are truly committed to diversity.

Thanks for this post, Steve. Typical Willy Week article, unfortunately.

Anon posted: "For the record, Senator Wyden not only recommended the first person of color to the federal district court in Oregon, but has also recommended more women who have been appointed to the federal bench than any other US Senator (probably more than any of the previous senators combined)."

That should say "first [and only] person of color to the federal district court in Oregon" since there has been only one. Of the 26 Article III judges confirmed to sit on Oregon's district court four have been non-white males, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

And for what it is worth, it seems you can't have it both ways: the Senator can be congratulated for appointing diversity to the bench as long as he can also be criticized for advancing five finalists that come from the same gender/race/ethnicity.

Looking at the backgrounds of the 26 judges that have had the privilege of serving Oregonians, you will see they have had varied backgrounds. For instance, one judge was two years out of law school before moving to a federal magistrate and bankruptcy judge position and then later being named a district court judge, and another judge had four years of private practice before moving to the state trial court and eventually to the federal district court.

It seems that what is considered "qualified" has changed over the years and one would hope that that whatever the panel was looking for--even if no non-white, straight male who applied this time made the cut--that folks are making sure everyone has the opportunity to acquire those qualifications.

The Selection committee was heavily weighted towards the Willamette Valley legal corridor of power. Portland, Salem and Eugene. There were two from Lane County, Two?? (a Lane Co Judge is a finalist by the way) and one from Salem.

And there were too many corporate lawyers from larger firms.

Frankly it was a group that represented the legal powers that be, large donors, connected lawerys and party activists and those hoping to become more influential in the party.

I sent Wyden's office a message asking why the Willamette Valley was so heavily represented, (because I knew where this was headed). But no one from Washington County? (over 10% of the state population and an economic engine) or the Coast? or even traditional Clackamas County (There is a lawyer from West Linn, don't know if he practices in Portland mostly or Clack Co. Ct).

I got no response.

There is a long standing history in this state of appointing supreme ct, appeals ct, and Fed ct judge from the Portland, Salem Eugene corridor.

And there was a qualified minority candidate. He was selected in a competitive selection process by Sen Smith only a year ago. How can he NOT be one of the top 5? Unfortunately, he didn't come from the Willamette valley. And I think that hurt his chances.

Did the committee intend to discriminate based on geography? No, of course not. But there is long standing and not so subtle discrimination (in fact its open distain in some cases) against attorneys and Judges outside the Portland, Salem, Eugene areas in legal appointments in this State. I've heard it. As long as we get the usual suspects on selection committees, that will assure that we don't get geographic diversity on the bench. We'll end up with Mult, Lane and Marion co judges and attorneys on the State appellate and Federal Benches who know the same people and think the same way.

Now We will get gender and racial diversity. But not diversity of experience, legal thought, and background.

While everyone is busy pointing fingers at the process no one is talking about what can be done to encourage more women to apply for federal judicial appointments. Does OWLS do this actively? I don't know. Does the Oregon State Bar do this? I don't know.

What can be done? Women should be seeking out these positions.

But Senator Wyden should not be on the phone twisting arms until he has a couple of women who will submit their names just so he can avoid the argument that is playing out on this very website.

Let's stop the chatter and encourage more women lawyers to look seriously at careers on the bench.

According to their press release, the selection committee also included a lawyer from Pendleton, a lawyer from Bend, and a lawyer from Medford.

I think if you look at the percentage of lawyers practicing in Oregon, most are found in the Portland Metro area. Not sure I'm buying your geographical diversity complaint.

I think if Merkley and Wyden appointed a majority of women and people of color, which they did, two from Eugene, and one each from SW, central, and eastern Oregon, they did a pretty solid job. The only alternative would be to short the Portland area or add more committee members. Thirteen sounds a bit large already, at least for my tastes.

And there was a qualified minority candidate. He was selected in a competitive selection process by Sen Smith only a year ago. How can he NOT be one of the top 5? Unfortunately, he didn't come from the Willamette valley. And I think that hurt his chances.

I assume you are referring to Judge Marco Hernandez, nominated by Senator Smith in 2008.

Since when is Washington County not in the Willamette Valley?

I've really struggled with whether to speak up in this discussion. I have already published my general views on the ridiculous way that we choose federal judges. http://tinyurl.com/mb3lxx As a lawyer who applied for appointment, I know that it's my unspoken duty to go and lick my wounds in private, but it's not my in nature to ignore unfairness. And yes, I thought the process was unfair and I was deeply offended by it.

Steve, your thesis is, "don't blame Ron," but "Ron" is a United States Senator. As terrible as this process is, it is his responsibility to make it the best that it can be. To watch you try to redirect the blame for this fiasco onto his selection committee is frankly sickening.

The Senator appointed a committee of Democratic party regulars whose natural inclination would be to make political judgments about the candidates first and ask questions about their qualifications later. Your description of the voting process simply confirms that the process was based on political preferences and not objective criteria. And to tell us that the process was inherently fair because there were women and minorities voting is, bluntly, sexist and racist. It's judging individuals based on stereotypes and it is wrong.

If your "grapevine" is telling you that there were no qualified LGBT or minority candidates who applied, then it is sadly misinformed. (Adding insult to injury, the Senator suggested the same thing through his spokesperson in the WW article.) One of the biggest probelms with the Senator's process was that it was conducted in secret. No one knows who applied and was rejected except as we choose to speak up, or through one "grapevine" or another.

I know I'm going to be excoriated for saying this, but someone has got to do it, and I might as well be the first: I applied for these appointments, and I was not granted the courtesy of an interview. Based on my qualifications and the makeup of the committee, I presume that the reason is either (1) because I have represented unpopular causes on behalf of my community or (2) because I am "too gay."

I hope that the other candidates will speak up as well. In the meantime, I hope that "Ron" will do what he should have done when he received the committee's recommendations, which is to reject them and start over. Or if, as has been suggested, the nominees were chosen before this process started, then he should own that and say so. The same is true if the Senator simply doesn't care to defend a controversial choice before the Senate. There's no sense pretending that this is an open process if it's not.

Knock Wyden on health care? That is one of his best moves to date .. someone who takes a stand, I love it.

Department of Obvious: Johnson is a little whiny bitch to post on blogs because he didn't get a job.

Mark,

It takes chutzpah to imply the members of the selection committee may be homophobic just because they declined to interview you, particularly given that you are competing against the most respected members of the bar. Even a highly regarded family lawyer (and nobody disputes that you are) faces an uphill climb to an Article III appointment because you rarely practice in federal court.

Also, I'd wager that offending Senator Wyden and his powerful chief of staff is not the best way to position oneself for appointment to US Attorney or the next vacancy to the Federal bench.

Right ON! Josh and Aristotle!

The only thing funnier than Kardon pandering to gays/women/rainbow coalition is Johnson's self-published lack of judicial temperament. Temperament is the one standard criteria used by all Republicans and Democrats in picking federal judges, you dope. Best of luck with your judgeship.

Excellent comment from Kardon. But Mr. Novick, about your statement: "The selection committee made un-diverse choices." Would you dare suggest that five black candidates would be all alike? Or five Latino candidates? Those five white candidates are not identical. Look at their individual lives; there is diversity.

@Josh Kardon,

I just want to say, that I appreciate it, that as a member of Sen. Wyden's staff you take the time to explain his positions. Even though I often don't agree with you or your boss's positions, you are an eloquent and constructive spokesperson for him in this forum, and patient in your advocacy on this site.

As a member of the selection committee, I'm amazed that Mr. Johnson felt he deserved an interview given the rich talent pool that applied for these positions. His legal background (and now I see temperament and judgement) couldn't compete with other candidates who were interviewed. I'm sorry that Mr. Johnson felt the need air his grievances, but his approach confirms why he was not on the interview list.

Seven of the 13 (and six of the nine members Ron appointed) were women or people from minority groups.

So you're telling me that 1/2 of the group were not women and other half men? You're saying that the women and minorities had to split these seven positions? That is supposed to be "fair?"

What a bunch of crock. Half should have been women, and half men and if there were an odd number of positions, women should have gotten the extra seat due to centuries of discrimination against us. Out of each of those two groups, there should have been a mix of skin color. I'm sick and f'ing tired of women getting the short end of the deal.

Mr. Kardon,

How nice it would have been to explain the selection process earlier in the discussion. You must understand that people who have been discriminated against throughout their lives, in the face of a new possible discrimination and in the absence of information, naturally believe over time that their fears must again be true. I appreciate that you have taken such personal care and efforts to try to make this a fair process, but it sure didn't look that that at first, and your office's failure to promptly disclose the process didn't help.

Your post is a bit acrimonious as well. Johnson is just an applicant and a constituent. YOU are the spokesperson for the senator. Just explaining the process without all the personal attacks would have been best. You were obviously angry when you wrote this; you should have had somebody with a calmer mind edit such a response before firing it off to the public as the official response of Wyden's office. It's so over the top, it make me recall "methinks the lady doth protest too much."

Also, are inquiries about employment public information at your office? At my employer if an HR person publicly disclosed a previous unrelated job inquiry and conversation, they'd be disciplined. Even if you didn't break the rules, it was a cheap shot to expand the discussion to all the personal disagreements you've had with Mr. Johnson.

Lastly, can you delete the posts that are simply name-calling? I don't see that they add to a discussion on minority inclusion and only server to convice us that hatred runs deep.

If you were at a casino playing a game that involved forty multi-colored balls tumbling in a basket and being spit out into little chute (ala Powerball), you would want the process to be fair, or you would demand your money back. Now, what if the balls chosen in prior games are given a place of honor? If that place of honor is a sea of white/blue balls, a smattering of white/pink balls (I’ve never liked pink, but it illustrates the point), a smaller smattering of brown/blue and brown/pink balls, and no rainbow balls, what color would you lay money on?

The betting begins; twenty blue and white balls go into the basket, with the rest including pink or brown or rainbow colors. You put your money on at least one ball coming out that involves a color combination other than blue and white. As the balls begin to roll and each one that appears turns out to be blue and white, you move from disappointment, to disbelief, to anger.

Or what if you bet on the blue and white, thinking you have a solid chance of at least 2 coming out, but every last ball is pink and brown? Would you think the process fair? If the casino owner told you that the process had been fair, would you believe him?

I realize that my allegory is limited. Let’s abandon the allegory; it got old in the first paragraph.

I have no doubt of the exceptional qualifications of the five candidates who have been presented to Senator Wyden as potential federal judges. I also have no doubt of the competence and goodwill of the people who were on the nominating committee. But the fact is that there are more than five highly qualified candidates in Oregon and certainly at least one of them involves a color other than white or a gender other than male or an orientation other than heterosexual.

It is well and good to describe the process as fair, but please don’t be surprised if people who are not white male heterosexuals perceive that a process is not fair if it has for so long produced results that are not fair. I appreciate Senator Wyden’s history of recommending women and minorities to positions on the federal bench. But this goes much deeper than Senator Wyden’s history.

If we were dealing with a basket of balls as I have described, we would expect a statistical randomness that would bring a wide variety of results. But we aren’t. We’re dealing with human beings and their lengthy history of assumptions about what is and is not acceptable or expected behavior, based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, etc. Do we evaluate the same behavior in a man or woman with the same results? If we ever arrive at a time when we think perfect justice is being served, we probably aren’t paying attention. But we’ll get closer if we keep pushing. And if people like Mark Johnson don’t push, who will?

Please, no more personal attacks. And if you insist, at least have the courage to put your name behind it.

I disagree with your conclusion. Sorry. There is a right way to push that need not be polite, and a way that is irrefutably unfair and sets us back. Mark took the wrong turn - he falsely accused fellow attorneys of discrimination. Nowhere in your comment do you address the fact that Mark falsely accused (presumably) good people of bias against gays and lesbians.

"Based on my qualifications and the makeup of the committee, I presume that the reason is either (1) because I have represented unpopular causes on behalf of my community or (2) because I am "too gay."

Think for a second about what his charge can do to the careers and reputations of these committee members. I imagine that some of the women who served on the committee will some day put in for judgeships at the state or federal level. You don't typically get to serve on these panels unless you are a highly regarded attorney. They now have a controversy dogging them that will get discussed by some future selection committee. I sure hope they are wise enough to dismiss the charge, but a future governor doesn't want to worry about whether Basic Rights or Human Rights Campaign is going to attack over an alleged homophobe being tapped to be a judge.

There is an obvious solution and I suspect it has already occurred to Mark. He needs to apologize to the members of the committee. He did a horrible thing and he needs to make it right.

I suspect from the number of people posting anonymously that a number of us have to practice in the same town with Mark, the selection committee members, and the 5 lucky winners. I notice that a couple of people claiming to have been selection committee members have commented. If they are who they say they are, they must be furious. I would be.

On a different topic, I think the trial judges who were nominated are going to be far better prepared to serve on the federal bench than Tom Balmer, Steve Wax or Michael Simon. Balmer hasn't practiced in years,and Simon and Wax are great lawyers, but we could use some help on day one.

Of all the people posting, it seems Heidi Strauch was the only one able to rise above the fray and discuss the actual issue of diversity/discrimination and its legacy, she did not resort to personal attacks or divulging confidential information. Kudos to Heidi (a woman attorney). Maybe others will be able to do the same someday?

It seems that this whole fracas very quickly devolved into personal attacks, finger-pointing, and unprofessional behavior for the lawyers among us (who are held to a higher standard of conduct). Hopefully Heidi's (and a couple others') comments will remind everyone that the issue at hand is not who did what to whom and why, the issue is increasing diversity on the federal bench going forward.

Heidi got the tone right, but the wrong conclusion. I assume she is a friend of Mark's, and a loyal one at that. But now is a little late to send friends to plead for a more civil tone. Don't make accusations and run and hide. I'm with one of the anons. Mark should prove up or apologize.

His excuse for not getting chosen reminded me of the good old boy complaint when rejected for a date by a woman - "She must be a lesbian." No, you just aren't as desirable as you thought you were.

I actually have never met Mark Johnson, at least not that I recall. I just know who he is. I don't have to be a friend to make a reasoned argument that agrees with his basic point that long-term results indicate that the process is not fair, nor to appreciate his courage in coming to the discussion and standing behind his comments with his name.

It strikes me as odd to anonymously accuse someone of running and hiding. If the committee members want to respond to his comments they can call, write, or email. If Mark (or anyone else) wants to respond to your comments, we can't do that except by engaging in a tiresome exchange of public postings.

Sorry Heidi. This time it was me who jumped to conclusions. See how easy it is to admit when you have unfairly jumped to a conclusion. : )

I am curious, however, that you seem not the least bit offended that Mark accused innocent people of being homophobes, you seem unconcerned his charges might tarnish their reputations, but you are offended by anonymous comments.

You may not come here often, but the overwhelming majority of comments arrive anonymously. I have an employer who frowns on the political. Other people have their own reasons, I'm sure.

Judge Karsten Rasmussen, from Lane County, is an excellent choice. He is personable, smart, and to the point in his rulings.

I'm not at all offended by anonymous comments. I'm offended by anonymous personal attacks.

Now, can we get back to the point? (If I remember correctly, the point is how candidates are put forward for nomination to the federal bench.)

I don't know much about the other candidates, but if Steve Wax gets the nod then I will easily overcome my disappointment in the lack of diversity.

Read "Kafka Comes to America." This man should be on the Supreme Court- not closet fascists like Scalia, Roberts and Alito- oh, and don't forget Thomas in case you think being a person of color is a sure path to judicial righteousness.

As for the other 4 candidates, personable by all accounts. I am deeply distrustful of the Oregon legal establishment which is corporativist and cocktail party liberal as opposed to true progressives. The criminal trial lawyers might give us the best chance to reverse the police state and morally autistic trends led by, though not exclusively The Republican appointments of late.

But the big firm types will likely be of that nebish breed like the OR Sup and Ct of Apps- where they smugly regard themselves as progressive but are decidedly not.

And consider this: regretfully Lewis & Clark did not bring Oregon the news of the proper trial by jury (12 persons good and true) and this ancient common law innovation has yet to arrive in Oregon courts a number of contexts.

Furthermore, the lack of interrogatories makes litigation more expensive which inevitably favors the rich and powerful. There are a great number of other regressive laws and procedures which make Oregon law an intellectual backwater, but that is material for a book and not a blog.

I concur that no fault can be laid to Wyden on this point.

Steve, I am extremelly dispointed with Ron Wyden and will work against his re-election, canvassing and asking fellow Democrats and Independents blank the optin for Seanator in the next election, if Wyden doesn't vote for a stong public option. I worked for your campaign last year and donated money for Barack's election. I've called Sen. Wyden's office several times expressing my concern about his position against what the people of Oregon voted for in the last election. I will keep my promise to work to remove Wyden if he doesn't vote according to Oreginians in this matter. Warm Regards, Evandro