Judges Gone Wild
by admin on 28/12/09 at 9:41 am
The Wall Street Journal
December 26, 2009
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.
Instead, judges are now being cast into a realm of suspicion and the presumption of partisanship. On the closely divided Michigan Supreme Court, the power may become a weapon in the hands of those seeking to insure their case finds a favorable audience with those who sympathize with their position. Or should we say, “empathize”?
