« Instapundit Goes Hybrid | Main | A Ménage of Minis »
November 03, 2005
DeLay Gets New Judge but State Farm Keeps Karmeier?
In yet another high profile story about when a member of the judiciary should not be permitted to sit in judgment, former House Majority leader Tom DeLay got his wish for a new judge. Why? Because the judge assigned to hear his criminal matter was a long-term democrat and had contributed $5,000 since the year 2000 to democratic candidates and organizations. Judge removed from DeLay's criminal case - Boston.com
$5,000 over five years and a history of being a democrat? Yes, that's all it took in Texas. Contrast that with allegations made by the Avery Plaintiffs in their dispute with State Farm over vehicle repairs made with aftermarket parts that Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier took well over $1 Million from State Farm and associates for his election campaign to claim a spot on the Illinois high court, yet he flatly rejected Plaintiffs' request that he recuse himself from participating in the decision that blanketly reversed the $1 Billion+ judgment against his benefactor.
Something's rotten in Denmark -- er, make that, Illinois.
It seems quite clear that if contributions on average of $1,000 per year to your fellow party candidates and organizations and a long-term affiliation with a political party is enough to have a judge plucked from the bench for one case, then shouldn't $1 Million+ in election funding traceable (as alleged by Plaintiffs) directly to a party that has over $1 Billion at stake in a single case be sufficient to have a judge sidelined? The disparate results in these two matters, particularly when significantly more damning allegations were made in the matter in which the judge was not removed, bring issues with our state justice systems clearly into focus.
There is a strong argument that our state court judges should be appointed rather than elected. As I have noted elsewhere, a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court (as constituted prior to the recent resignation of Justice O'Connor and death of Chief Justice Rehnquist) had serious doubts as to whether any judge facing reelection can fairly decide a high-profile case. Throw in the fact that the barest hint of a lack of impartiality requires a judge's automatic withdrawal from a case under Illinois' Code of Judicial Conduct, Cannon 3 (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63) into the mix, and there can be little doubt that the Avery Plaintiffs were denied Due Process.
Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court takes the Avery v. State Farm appeal. Otherwise, it may seem like politics and money are only seen as issues on matters in the south.
Illinois Supreme Court (Code of Judicial Conduct) Rule 63(C) states:
- C. Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning it;
(c) the judge was, within the preceding three years, associated in the private practice of law with any law firm or lawyer currently representing any party in the controversy (provided that referral of cases when no monetary interest was retained shall not be deemed an association within the meaning of this subparagraph) or, for a period of seven years following the last date on which the judge represented any party to the controversy while the judge was an attorney engaged in the private practice of law;
(d) the judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or has any other more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(e) the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) is known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or,
(iv) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(2) A judge shall keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge's spouse and minor children residing in the judge's household.
Posted by E L Eversman at November 3, 2005 11:04 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.vehicleinfo.com/cgi/mt-tb.cgi/171