Dolores Sloviter, Circuit Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (formerly the Chief Circuit Judge)

Judge Dolores Sloviter appears to be a functional illiterate.  That is, she can recognize the meanings of most individual words but is unable to comprehend their meanings or the intentions of those who wrote them when strung together in a sentence or a paragraph.

The evidence is as follows:

A 1% sampling of Judge Sloviter's published opinions (or opinions in which her name appears) reveals the following:

In this case a fellow judge points out she can't understand the meaning of a single word standing by itself:

In Davidson v. O'Lone, 752 F.2d 817 (3rd Cir. 1984) Judge Sloviter held that negligent failure to take steps to protect a prison inmate did not give rise to a claim under the Civil Rights Act, even though New Jersey law provided no remedy for the inmate.

In simple English, in Judge Sloviter's court prisoners have no rights.  The judge in the lower court had ruled in the prisoner's favor, awarding him damages.  Davidson had suffered serious personal injuries when he was beaten and stabbed by another inmate.  Id. at 836.
 

The fact that this unconstitutional and immoral decision was upheld by a Supreme Court increasingly hostile to the disadvantaged (e.g., prisoners) and the defenseless (e.g., the unborn) neither speaks well for Judge Sloviter and her colleagues nor excuses her inability to comprehend the English language.  See Davidson v. O'Lone, 106 S.Ct. 668 (1986), in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist disposed of the "rights" of prisoners in less than two (2) pages.

This "Pontius Pilate" routine, washing one's hands of judicial responsibility, is easily seen in Judge Sloviter's response to Complaint For Judicial Misconduct no. 97-25 filed June 30, 1997 against federal district court judge D. Brooks Smith for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2, § 3, and § 4.  Her Order indicates she apparently is unable to comprehend the meanings of the statutes or the fact that the Complaint concerned the commission of felonies by district court judge D. Brooks Smith, not merely the usual trampling of the "rights" of American citizens by a federal judge.

In the 14th century the Court of Common Pleas determined that it, "didn't have time for the affairs of peasants."  See Plucknett, Concise History of the Common Law.  In Davidson Judge Sloviter determined that the federal courts didn't have time for prisoners (today's peasants, presumably).

I.e., Judge Sloviter can't even read and comprehend her own opinion!

Again Judge Sloviter exhibited her inability to comprehend the meaning of a single word:

Nor does Judge Sloviter appear to be able to read Supreme Court decisions.

That there is something foul afoot in Judge Sloviter's Third Circuit is reflected in other language from the same opinion:

This blatantly unfair and illogical case then went on to contaminate other cases.  See e.g., Phillips v. Borough of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164, 184 (3rd Cir. 1997) (Sloviter, Stapleton--who was identified in  97-25 as "covering" for D. Brooks Smith--and others over-rode a lower court decision denying judgment to peddlers of X-rated filth who had been denied a zoning permit).
 
    Judge Sloviter's Order, page 4, comparing J.C. No. 97-25 with In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 691 F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1982), is a further example of her reading disability (or dishonesty).  In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct referred to no factual evidence.  97-25 referred to forensic evidence of the type recognized by Third Circuit precedent.

A few sentences from Judge Sloviter's The Judiciary Needs Judicious Growth, National Law Journal article of June 28, 1993, pages 17-18 bear repeating:

Why not?  She already closed the courthouse doors to prisoners.

Except for prisoners.

Unless, of course, you happen to be a prisoner or an innocent person in prison, as J.C. No. 97-25 so aptly illustrates.

In Taxman v. Board of Educ. of Township of Piscataway, 91 F.3d 1547 (3rd Cir. 1996), the dissent of Chief Judge Sloviter characterizes the use of a random process as "a solution that could be expected of the state's gaming tables."  See page 1551 note 4.

A litigant forced into Judge Sloviter's court has only a random access to justice in front of a judge with a reading disability.  A prisoner's odds are much better in a gambling casino.

It appears that Third Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Dolores Sloviter is unable to properly discharge her duties because of serious English language comprehension problems.
 
**********************************************************************************************
    (Footnote 1)  United States v. Harris, 1 S.Ct. 601 (1882) (Federal antilynching law unconstitutional) J. Chadbourn, Lynching and the Law (1933) W. White, Rope & Faggot (1929) National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States 1889-1918 (1919) J. Cutler, Lynch-Law An Investigation of the History of Lynching in the United States (1969).

(Footnote 2)  But see Union County Jail Inmates v. DiBuono, 713 F.2d 984, 718 F. 2d 1247 (3d Cir. 1983) (pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates may be confined in conditions comparing unfavorably with those permitted by federal laws regulating the confinement of animals).
**********************************************************************************************
 
 

 

Back to THE HALL OF SHAME