[ by Melanie Gretchen ] U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff has taken to the headlines since President Bill Clinton nominated him to the bench in 1995.  Before he presided over a settlement between the trustee for Bernie Madoff and the owners of the New York Mets, he declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 2002, to, more recently, challenging the SEC's settlements with Bank of America and Citigroup over financial-crisis-era toxic securities. Reuters talked to the man itself, in his chambers on the 13th floor of Manhattan federal court. Reuters: Why did you choose the law as your career? Judge Rakoff: It was one of the things I considered.  I considered a career as a historian.  I considered very seriously a book of lyrics on musical comedies.  What attracted me is its blend of the intellectual and the practical, and it has the potential for advancing the cause of justice.  I actually also considered a career as a reporter and I worked for two summers at the Philadelphia Bulletin and the Detroit Free Press, but they beat it out of me quickly. Reuters: What has been your most rewarding moment as a judge? Judge Rakoff: As a judge, to a substantial extent, you get to say what you think within the limits of what the law permits and that is very satisfying, very freeing.  I would also say something I hadn't really focused on when I became a judge that is tremendously rewarding, is being a mentor to my clerks.  I cannot tell you how satisfying that is.  I've had fantastic clerks and to watch them develop, to have the benefit of their intelligence, to see them in their further careers, I regard them as my extended family. There have been many moments.  Certainly, one of them was when I declared the death penalty unconstitutional even though I knew there was a meaningful possibility that I would be reversed.  I didn't start as an opponent of the death penalty.  I really came around because of the DNA stuff.  I gave the government several opportunities to tell me why I was wrong, but I became convinced that my own approach was the right approach.  I still think so and I think the Supreme Court will come around to my view (one day). Reuters: Do you believe that decision effectively ended your chances of being elevated to the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals? Judge Rakoff: Oh, I knew that when I decided.  I discussed that with my wife when I decided.  The federal judge takes an oath to call them as he sees them and we're given lifetime tenure in order to encourage our independence and it would have been a real denial of what the system is all about if I had allowed that to influence my decision.  In hindsight, I tell myself - whether this is justification or not, rationalization or not - it's a lot more fun on the district court. You sit on appeals court panels as an invited guest judge.  What are the main differences between a trial judge and those of a Circuit judge? There is nothing as thrilling as a trial.  The parties and the judge are making instantaneous decisions again and again.  It calls for both physical and mental stamina. Reuters: When you are on the court of appeals you are more focused on the long term.  It is important that the case itself be decided correctly but what a judge on the court of appeals has to think about is: How will my decision effect the next 20 cases that won't be exactly the same, if similar? Judge Rakoff: A huge amount of time is spent in the court of appeals on wordsmithing as to how this case will effect other cases in the future Reuters: Court observers, and other judges, have noticed that you are assigned a large number of high-profile cases.  Are you particularly assertive putting your name up for those? Judge Rakoff: The cases are decided by random assignment.  A bunch of us went senior last year and decided to pretty much keep a full load because the court was short of judges.  If we had all said we were going to take half of the cases we used to, the court would have been in terrible trouble.  I find that there will be periods when you get high-profile cases and a period when you get none at all. Reuters: Do you view the Obama administration's difficulty in filling judicial vacancies as a matter of the administration not pushing hard enough, or is it the fault of the U.S. Senate? Judge Rakoff: It is politics.  It's an old story but I don't think it's been any materially different under this administration than under preceding administrations.  The only quibble I would have is that the best time to get anyone confirmed is in the first two years and it wasn't as quick as it could have been. Reuters: If you were on the Supreme Court, how would you have ruled on the issue of strip searches for all new jail inmates? Judge Rakoff: I had one strip search case many years ago and I ruled in favor of it, but it did not raise the same fundamental issues that were raised in the Supreme Court this year, so I'm really hesitant because I haven't read deeply into the briefs.  There is an endless tension between the needs of law enforcement and prison authorities for security and the rights of people to privacy and dignity and freedom. Reuters: Did you have a chance to follow the arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court on the Obama administration's healthcare law? Judge Rakoff: Only at a distance and certainly I don't feel confident to have an opinion on that obviously very important case.  But if nothing else, it has prompted a debate about the role of the Supreme Court in American government, so that's interesting. Reuters: Do you think the quality of lawyering and also the quality of prosecutions is improving? Judge Rakoff: In some ways yes, and in some ways no.  The ethical level of lawyers is I think higher than 100 years ago.  I'm sensitive to that because I have been chair of the grievance committee on the Southern District of New York disciplining lawyers who have made ethical mistakes.  It happens, but I'm amazed at how relatively rare it happens.  I've rarely seen the kind of trickery on the part of lawyers in the district that used to be sort of part of the game, even when I was first starting out. What has declined, is the ability to try a jury case and that's because there are far fewer trials.  I know lawyers when it comes to writing motion papers and arguing legal matters, they are superb.  Then they get in front of a jury and I don't know what they are talking about. That's simply because it can't be taught. It has to be experienced, you learn by doing it, the very thrilling interaction between the witness, the jury the lawyer, the judge all going on at one time.  You only know how to handle it by doing it. It's a great shame and it's a great shame for the system in a different sense because at a trial the system is put on public view.  In the criminal justice system, 97% of the defendants now plead guilty and that was only after guidelines came in with mandatory minimums. For decades it was 85 percent. The difference is that no one sees how the justice system operates because it is all being negotiated behind closed doors. Reuters: What is the story behind your love of baseball? Judge Rakoff: I am a huge fan of the Yankees, although I am now arguably the savior of the Mets. I was born in Philadelphia and I was a fan of the Phillies until 1964 when they were in first place for the entire season until they lost 13 straight games.  It broke my heart.  My joke is I wanted to have allegiance to a team so completely heartless I would never be upset if they lost. [Reuters, 4/13/12]