Posted on 06/13/2003 7:55:09 AM PDT by dalereed
Impeach judge who influenced Michigan case
Joseph Perkins
June 13, 2003
Boyce Martin should be impeached. That's the only fitting response to the recent damning revelation that the chief judge of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals flouted court rules to ensure that the court returned a ruling backing the University of Michigan in a case challenging its law school's race-conscious admissions policy.
The case, Grutter v. James, subsequently went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices heard oral arguments in April. The high court's decision is expected by the end of this month.
Martin, a liberal appointed by Jimmy Carter, apparently was determined to stack the deck in the university's favor, determined to send the Supreme Court a ruling that declared it is all right for schools to admit less-qualified blacks and Hispanics in the interest of diversity.
So the 6th Circuit's chief judge assigned himself to the three-judge panel hearing the U-M case though court rules dictate that assignments be made randomly.
Martin also neglected to disclose for five months that a petition had been filed to have the case reheard by the entire court. That was just long enough for two of Martin's more conservative colleagues on the 6th Circuit to take so-called "senior status," which meant they couldn't participate in the case.
Had the conservatives been included, the outcome of appellate court's decision in the U-M case almost certainly would have been different.
Martin's maneuverings "raise an inference that misconduct has occurred," according to an ethics review conducted by Judge Alice Batchelder, Martin's colleague on the 6th Circuit. The review was prompted by a complaint from the watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Martin insists that he has been falsely accused. "I'm royally shafted," he told The Associated Press. "It's like poor Sammy Sosa. I never had a corked bat before, and I don't think I had one here."
But, of course.
And Martin's defenders are taking a page from Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's playbook, claiming that the chief judge somehow is the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy. And that Batchelder, a conservative appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush, is doing the right wing's dirty work.
The trouble with that claim is that Batchelder, acting on behalf of the 6th Circuit, appears to have gone out of her way to be lenient with Martin, even though his rule-breaking placed her on the losing side of the 5-4 decision in the U-M case. Indeed, while her review found evidence of Martin's judicial misconduct, she nonetheless decided that the chief judge ought not be disciplined; that he ought not receive so much as a reprimand.
"Because this court has taken, and is taking, corrective action regarding all the issues," Batchelder concluded, that "makes additional action unnecessary."
In other words, since the 6th Circuit has taken steps to prevent Martin or some other chief judge from ignoring established court procedures, from unduly influencing the outcome of cases, Martin's wrongdoing need not be punished.
That's like ImClone saying that, because it has taken corrective action to prevent insiders from dumping its stock before the company makes bad news public, Sam Waksal, its former CEO, ought not to have received a seven-year prison sentence for his fraudulent conduct.
And what makes it all the worse in Martin's case is that he maintains that Batchelder did him an injustice.
Yet, she did not go nearly as far as Judicial Watch wanted. "The Michigan affirmative action case was fixed," stated Thomas Fitton, the watchdog group's president. "The Supreme Court now has before it a landmark case which made its way to its steps through judicial misconduct."
That's why the misconduct charges against Martin are best resolved through impeachment proceedings.
Let the House of Representatives consider whether his actions in the U-M case rise to the level that he should face a Senate impeachment trial.
Maybe, after weighing all the evidence, the House will decide that there's nothing to the charges against Martin. He could return to the bench with his good name and reputation restored.
Then, again, maybe lawmakers will conclude that the 6th Circuit's chief judge abused the power of his position; that he tilted the scales of justice in Grutter to achieve the outcome he desired. In that case, it would be the Lower Chamber's constitutional duty to adapt articles of impeachment against Martin and the Senate's duty to remove the appellate judge from office.
Perkins can be reached via e-mail at joseph.perkins@uniontrib.com.
Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
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.