Unfit for the Judiciary

The nomination of Francis X. Morrissey to the U.S. district court has been approved by the Judiciary Committee, and his appointment now awaits the consent of the Senate. But there is good reason for agreeing with the American Bar Association that "from the standpoint of legal training, legal experience and legal ability," Morrissey is unqualified for the federal bench.

In his seven years on the municipal bench, Morrissey has acquired neither the training nor the distinction requisite of a federal judge. He has had virtually no experience with jury or equity cases, nor has he dealt with any of the complex issues that Federal judges must handle daily. It took Morrissey three attempts over ten years to pass the Massachusetts bar examinations. He graduated from Suffolk Law School--not even an accredited institution at the time he attended--only after he failed four courses.

Indeed, not even Morrissey's supporters have attempted to refute the argument that he lacks experience and intellectual ability. They have emphasized instead that he is a man of integrity and devotion, of honesty and sincerity. "No one can question his sterling character", Cardinal Cushing wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "His inability to fulfill the duties of this office have been overplayed."

But if Morrissey's professional ineptitude has been "overplayed" by his opponents, evidence presented by the A.B.A. indicates that his character and integrity have been overrated by his supporters. It is now clear that Morrissey attempted to conceal information from the Justice Department and the Senate Judicary Committee, and that he falsely represented his residence in 1934 either to bar association officials in Georgia or to election officials in Boston.

According to the A.B.A., Morrissey used a "quickie law diploma" and had stated that he was a resident of Georgia when he was admitted to practice there in 1933. The nominee later admitted that he went to Georgia in 1933 and attempted to begin a practice after a three-month cram course at Southern Law School--a now-defunct institution consisting at that time of a three-man faculty.

Morrissey contends that he did not falsely represent his residence to officials in Georgia and remained in that state from June 1993 to March 1934. Yet, on September 2--only six months after Morrissey returned to Boston--official records show that he unsuccessfully ran in Boston's Second District for a seat in the Massachusetts State Legislature. Since the state constitution requires that a candidate have a year's residence in a district he seeks to represent, Morrissey would have been disqualified if his Georgia residence was in fact legitimate.

Either Morrissey did not consider himself a resident of Georgia, and therefore illegally gained the right to practice; or, he was indeed a rseident of Georgia and therefore illegally entered the September 2 primary. His action in either case--and his recent attempt to conceal the Georgia episode--shows him unfit for the federal judiciary.

We hope the Senate will not feel bound by the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee, and that it will refuse to confirm Morrissey's nomination.