Gerald Uelmen, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law who follows the court, agrees, saying that the chief has “generally come away from Sacramento with more than he went there with.”
That’s likely because of what Jake Dear, a senior attorney on the chief’s staff, calls George’s “force of personality.”
“He’s got a remarkable and rare ability to engage others on a personal level that both inspires and leads,” Dear says. “And that, I think, is the key to his success.”
LAYING DOWN THE LAW
George himself has modest hopes for how he will be treated by history.
And he’s surprised to hear that some attorneys and academicians compare him favorably with Phil Gibson, the chief justice from 1940 to 1964 who’s often viewed as the court’s greatest administrator, and with Roger Traynor, chief from 1964 to 1970 and commonly considered the court’s finest scholar.
“I would hope that the court under my legacy would be considered a court that is open-minded and not in lockstep,” George says. “A court in which the alignments of the justices and the resulting decisions are not always predictable, and a court in which the law is fairly and evenhandedly dispensed.”
George also hopes that his court reflects “a system that’s treated as a co-equal, independent and accountable branch of government � not just in theory, but in reality.”
Then-Gov. Pete Wilson named George to the bench in 1991 and elevated him to chief justice five years later, following a stellar career as an appellate justice, a trial court judge and a prosecutor. In fact, as a judge he presided over the trial of the Hillside Strangler and as an attorney argued before the U.S. Supreme Court no less than six times.
Even so, George’s 1996 confirmation as the state’s 27th chief justice wasn’t a given.
A month earlier, he had angered right-to-lifers � and given fellow Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren cause for concern � by dissenting in a ruling that upheld a law requiring parental consent for minors’ abortions.
Fifteen months later, George confirmed Lungren’s fears by authoring a 4-3 ruling that reversed the earlier decision. That bold about-face in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307, led to an unsuccessful campaign to have George voted off the bench.
Since then, George has written dozens of opinions that have earned him friends and enemies alike.
Many have addressed the judiciary’s interaction with the legislative and executive branches of government � particularly the separation of powers � while others have focused on making sure the judicial system runs smoothly and answers to the people.
“What he tries to do is realize the law is a practical thing,” says Dennis Maio, an of counsel in Reed Smith’s San Francisco office who served as a research attorney on the high court for nearly 20 years. “A lot of what he has to do as an administrator is to keep the system working.”
As examples, a couple of lawyers point to George’s rulings in 2001′s People v. Williams, 25 Cal.4th 441, which held there’s no right of jury nullification, and 2004′s Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055, which said officials acted outside their authority by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In both, says J. Clark Kelso, a professor at Sacramento’s McGeorge School of Law, the chief justice was asking, “Are we a country of laws or a country of individuals? And really, in both cases, [he made] very strong and very proper assertions that we’re a land of laws.”
Appellate specialist Jon Eisenberg, an Oakland-based of counsel for Encino’s Horvitz & Levy, says it’s obvious George “believes in the [judicial] system and in fostering public trust in [it]. And he sometimes has the opportunity to do that in his opinions.”
COURTING REFORM
It’s as a court administrator that most hold George in high regard.
In particular, says Stephen Barnett, a professor emeritus at Boalt Hall School of Law, George will be hailed for getting trial courts brought under state funding, merging the superior and municipal courts and getting legislation to transfer ownership and management of California’s 451 courthouses into state control.
“In almost all these efforts,” Barnett says, “George has been an effective spokesman and lobbyist for the state’s judicial branch.”
George touts the structural reforms himself and would be pleased if future generations recall them as having provided the judicial branch “with more stability and augmented resources to enable the improvement of services to the public.”
Important byproducts, he says, were jury reform, more interpreters, improved technology and self-help centers for people who can’t afford lawyers.
 Ronald George is sworn in as chief justice of the California Supreme Court in 1996. Recorder file |
“It’s all about increasing access to the courts,” he says, adding that he’s not only a spokesman for the judiciary, but entrusted to “make the system work better.”
But while George’s populist approach is appreciated by most, some critics contend his genial demeanor masks a thirst for unprecedented power for his own office.
Specifically, he’s been accused of attempting to wrangle power by giving the Judicial Council � over which he presides � more authority over state courts. And in doing so, some say, his rulings have ceded too much to the Legislature and governor.
“Indeed,” Barnett claims, “this has sometimes come about, arguably, at the cost of Supreme Court decisions giving away too much to the legislative branch.”
As examples, he points to 1999′s Senate of the State of California v. Jones, 21 Cal.4th 1142, which took Proposition 24 � aimed at cutting legislators’ pay and taking away their authority to set electoral district boundaries � off the March 2000 ballot, and 2000′s Obrien v. Jones, 23 Cal.4th 40, which gave the Legislature and governor authority to make some State Bar Court judicial appointments that traditionally had been made by the Supreme Court.
To some, those raise worries about George’s dedication to the separation of powers. Even former Justice Janice Rogers Brown, dissenting in Obrien, argued that George had “blithely welcome[d]” the executive and legislative branches into a core judicial function.
Kelso cites two 2002 rulings authored by George that he believes make the point even stronger. They are In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, which set a high bar for any court to overturn the governor’s parole decisions, and Manduley v. Superior Court (People), 27 Cal.4th 537, which gave prosecutors discretion to file certain charges against minors in criminal court rather than juvenile court.
“For me,” Kelso says, “a somewhat more assertive reassertion of separation of powers would not be a bad thing. But to Chief Justice George’s credit, he’s consistent in how he approaches this.”
SEEKING A PLACE IN HISTORY
Some also accuse George of hogging the court’s important cases, squelching dissent by fellow justices and letting docket delays run amok.
But the positive comments far outweigh the negative.
Dunn laughs off critics who believe the chief defers to the other branches of government, noting a 2005 George ruling that put a controversial redistricting measure back on the ballot.
“Just ask the Democratic leadership in the Legislature about deference,” Dunn says. “That was based upon the law, and not politics.”
Similarly, Joseph Grodin, a professor at Hastings College of the Law, dismisses skeptics who say George has too much clout within the court.
“He’s just one vote among seven,” notes Grodin, himself a justice on the California Supreme Court from 1982 to 1987.
Grodin, a Democrat, credits George for presiding over a “cautious court” that has taken strong stands on the independence of the state Constitution, especially regarding privacy, free speech and job discrimination.
“They’ve simply sometimes said, ‘We don’t agree with the United States Supreme Court,’” Grodin says. “And that’s a healthy thing.”
Eisenberg says George showed a sensitive side by ruling favorably toward women and minorities in four cases involving sexual harassment, hostile work environment, reproductive rights and private club discrimination.
Those cases, Eisenberg says, suggest “that [George's] jurisprudence in this regard isn’t just case by case, but part of a larger societal vision.”
As part of his efforts to bring the courts closer to the people, George took the unusual step of taking oral arguments on the road once a year for the last five years, treating students from San Diego to Redding to live court sessions that were also televised statewide.
“He has conducted one of the most successful outreach and communication efforts anyone has ever seen,” Kelso says.
And, Isenberg says, he’s done it with humility.
“Ron is the kind of chief justice who people automatically respect,” he says. “He is not like some judges who lord it over the rest of the world as if God selected them.”
Whether George ranks among the giants of the bench, only time will tell. Longevity is one thing, but many pundits say the George court lacks one thing � a ruling of such historic significance that it becomes synonymous with the court itself.
“He’s still young and active,” Grodin says. “He may be remembered for things that haven’t happened yet.”
Such as, many say, same-sex marriage.
Meanwhile, George is enjoying the attention around his 10-year anniversary, and making it clear he wants to hang around a while longer.
On Friday, during a ceremony honoring George at the Judicial Council, his wife of 40 years, Barbara, joked that he always swears that “next year things are going to slow down.” And they never do.
She also said his bench days got off to an auspicious start when � during a Chinese luncheon to celebrate his first judicial appointment to the Los Angeles County Municipal Court � his fortune cookie read: “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
Well, George has been judged by others and given more than passing grades. And if his health holds, he might give William Beatty � chief justice for more than 25 years between 1889 and 1914 � a run for his money.
“I can say most definitely that no greener pastures beckon,” George says. “Really, I cannot imagine anything I’d rather be doing.”
