No judicial endorsements
The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has declined to say that a federal court ruling has altered the state ethical rule that says judges may not publicly endorse or oppose candidates for political office.
Judge Marion Humphrey of Little Rock had asked the committee whether the case Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White had made such comments permissible. That ruling held that several Minnesota ethical rules were unconstitutional because they abridged judges' free speech right.
The Advisory Committee, in a letter written by Howard Brill, the UA Law School dean, said the committee wouldn't engage in a constitutional interpretation. "It is not our role to hold that a provision of the code is unconstitutional. Nor is it our role to rewrite the Code. That task rests with the judiciary."
The speech right of judges has been much in the news. Court of Appeals Judge Wendell Griffen has come under fire for some of his public pronouncements and faces an investigation by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. Another judge, Maumelle District Judge Roger Harrod, a candidate for Supreme Court, has been talking publicly about his disapproval of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Lake View case, which is still an active case. So far, none of the voices critical of Griffen (who carefully avoids talking about pending cases) has uttered criticism of Harrod.
Comments
So far, none of the voices critical of Griffen (who carefully avoids talking about pending cases) has uttered criticism of Harrod.
Why Griffen and not Harrod? Does this lead one to speculate? I could think of some things but it's obvious....
Posted by: Poetry in Motion | May 8, 2006 11:39 AM
Re: "So far, none of the voices critical of Griffen (who carefully avoids talking about pending cases) has uttered criticism of Harrod."
To its credit, the D-G editorial page has.
Posted by: Downtowner | May 8, 2006 12:59 PM
Forcing judges to discuss their views is part of a nationwide Religious Right strategy to politicise the bench and use the old "voter guide" treatment to elect only judges that favor their narrow views.
http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/05/bible_bench.html
Posted by: jb | May 8, 2006 02:40 PM
"Why Griffen and not Harrod?"--Poetry in Motion
No speculation is needed. The reason that Judge Griffen catches flak is because he is an African-American judge (bad enough in itself) who expresses unpopular opinions (even worse) about, in part, the University of Arkansas (God forbid!). The charges against Judge Griffen have been just shy of ridiculous, based on anonymous complaints and newspaper articles reporting his comments.
As for Judge Harrod, it is possible that someone has filed a complaint against him with the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. Under the Commission's rules, all actions taken prior to official disciplinary actions are confidential unless the judge in question waives confidentiality (as Judge Griffen apparently has done). If Judge Harrod were being investigated for his Lake View comments, the public would not know unless Judge Harrod waived confidentiality or unless action was taken.
If anyone is interested in making a complaint against Judge Harrod, they could do so by visiting the JDCC at http://www.state.ar.us/jddc/complaintform.html. You can do it online, and it might provide an interesting experiment in determining whether the JDCC applies the rules evenly or only against certain targets.
Posted by: Scribblerus | May 8, 2006 04:25 PM
Why Griffen and not Harrod? Does this lead one to speculate? I could think of some things but it's obvious....
Posted by: Poetry in Motion
---
Again, no speculation needed. Griffen has been under fire because he is such an unabashedly racist, bigoted, publicity hound. He has sought the spotlight and basks in the attention it provides.
Harrod (who?) is a johnny-come-lately to maikng headlines and has a long way to go to catch up.
Someone should tell Harrod that if he wants the limelight, it would help if he would make a few bigoted, racial or off-the-wall comments here and there and gradually, we will catch on.
Posted by: Don Keyhotay | May 9, 2006 09:26 AM
Again, no speculation needed. Griffen has been under fire because he is such an unabashedly racist, bigoted, publicity hound. He has sought the spotlight and basks in the attention it provides...Don Keyhotay
That's your bigoted mentality! Does that mean that you are not a bigot? As I've heard before, I guess it takes one to know one. People like you have always been afraid of he truth. Go Wendell!
Go to hell Don Keyhotay!!
Posted by: The Truth Hurts | May 9, 2006 10:55 AM
Truth Hurts:
I noticed that you didn't disagree with anything in my post.
Actually, since you said I am a bigot, and it takes one to know one, then, if you are right, you actually agreed with me.
Thank you.
Posted by: Don Keyhotay | May 9, 2006 01:32 PM