Posted on 12/26/2009 4:02:38 AM PST by reaganaut1
The fallout is already coming from this year's Supreme Court Caperton decision on judicial bias, and it isn't good. A new rule on judicial recusal in Michigan shows how the decision could expose nearly every judge to charges of prejudice.
In Caperton v. Massey, the Supremes set out a new standard requiring judges to recuse themselves if there is a "probability of bias" in a case. That was a marked departure from historical standards, which required a judge to step off primarily when he had a direct financial interest.
Under the new rule, created by the Michigan Supreme Court to govern the state's judicial recusal standards, a judge's impartiality may be challenged by the parties in the case, and if he declines to recuse himself, he may still be voted off the case by his fellow judges. Under the traditional method, a judge himself had the discretion of identifying if a conflict or potential bias exists. Of course, that approach requires a belief that judges are largely honest and will act honorably.
...
"Starting today," Justice Maura Corrigan wrote in a fiery dissent from the Supreme Court's recusal ruling, "those contesting traffic tickets will enjoy greater constitutional protections than the justices of this court." The plan, she added, "imperils civility among the justices" and "will precipitate a constitutional crisis."
This mayhem is the strategy of the George Soros-funded Brennan Center and Justice at Stake that see draconian recusal standards as a way to stigmatize judicial elections. By impugning a judge's ability to rule impartially by attacking his campaign statements, these groups hope more states will choose their judges through "merit selection"—a process that gives disproportionate influence to lawyers and tilts state courts to the left. They've scheduled an event in Michigan in February to [campaign against] judicial elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Actually, considering just that statement alone, that is as it should be.
Maybe I’m a bit obtuse this morning — I don’t see the downside to being able to ‘pull the teeth’ of Liberal (environmental activists, anti-business) judges....
Liberal judges on the Supreme court can gang up on a conservative one durning a case and swing the vote their way. Ya, its bad and unconstitutional too.
Michigan has it right on one thing. our control of the S C. justices...they rule carefully on many subjects cause they can removed...
“I don’t see the downside to being able to ‘pull the teeth’ of Liberal (environmental activists, anti-business) judges....”
It’ll probaby work the opposite way. This gives the judges’ superiors a handle on everything he or she does. In other words, if the judge does something they don’t like, even though there’s no law against it, they can can the judge on the grounds of “probable” prejudice.
I don't think so?
It is funny how the liberal trial lawyers have been getting friendly judges elected for decades, and the case that brings the whole phenomenon to light is one in which a conservative business finally decided to play that game and got a friendly judge elected to the W.VA. Supreme Court. The business defense lawyers do not play this game, because they get paid by the hour. The trial lawyers and the business themselves can make or lose less money by altering the legal climate in their favor.
Just like a century of Democrats drawing election districts was not a big problem. It was only when Republicans got control of legislatures and did the same thing that liberal college professors found this to be a problem worth complaining about.
Thanks, reaganaut1. Pinging grellis for the Michigan list.
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.