Update on Judicial Recusal
February 1, 2010
The same law.com article I posted on below also reported that the Conference of Chief Justices will meet this week. High on the agenda: new recusal standards for judges, which Justice at Stake’s Bert Brandenberg correctly called “a battle for the soul of the judiciary.”
As I’ve written before, recusal standards have become another vehicle for the trial bar and anti-business groups to try to marginalize conservative judges and remove them from cases.
CA Supreme Court On Recusal: “Mere Appearance of Bias” Not Enough
January 26, 2010
“Merit selection” supporters, treading water in many states in their attempt to eliminate democratic judicial elections, are looking to open a new front in the fight for America’s courthouse. Their latest strategy is to target judicial recusal standards — turning recusal into a back door way for special interest groups to limit the influence of citizens over judicial selection and shape the court to their own ideological ends.
Two weeks ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stopped such an effort in its tracks when it refused to adopt a rule that proposed automatic recusal in any case in which a litigant had made a $1,000 campaign contribution. The Wisconsin court wrote:
“[campaign] donations, endorsements or independent spending around elections are not enough to force judges off cases.”
And last week the California Supreme Court added its voice to Wisconsin’s. Law.com has the specifics of the case - here’s the money quote from the article:
“…Following an ‘exhaustive review’ of ‘a delicate realm of constitutional law,’ the justices said that ‘while a showing of actual bias is not required for judicial disqualification under the due process clause, neither is the mere appearance of bias sufficient…”
When fuzzy “appearance of bias” standards are used for recusal decisions it’s an invitation for unscrupulous trial lawyers to do whatever it takes to remove judges they fear might be unsympathetic to their cases.
Want proof? Look to Michigan. The supreme court there recently abandoned century-old recusal standards in favor of vague disqualification rules based on “appearances,” not facts. Just weeks later, trial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger demanded the state supreme court kick off three justices from the appeal of a case.
Kudos to California and Wisconsin for standing firm.
Letting Trial Lawyers Pick Their Judges
January 11, 2010
Back in November, I wrote about the danger that the fuzzy new recusal standards adopted by Michigan’s Supreme Court would encourage unscrupulous trial lawyers to try to remove justices they fear might be unsympathetic to their cases. As if on cue, sleazeball supreme Geoffrey Fieger is demanding that the court remove not one but three justices from the appeal of an upcoming case.
Fieger’s past attempts to sideline justices have been dismissed as the incoherent rantings they are. Now, however, any group of four Michigan justices can decide to temporarily unseat a colleague (or three) for any reason whatsoever. The Supreme Court’s action on this recusal request will help decide whether, under the new rules, the composition of Michigan’s top court is determined by Michigan voters or by the likes of Geoffrey Fieger.