 |
Judicial Ethics | Judicial Independence | Judicial Selection | Forensic Science | Pro Se Forum | Jury Center | High School Curriculum | AJS Store |
| Customer Service | Contact Us | Join/Give to AJS |
 |
|
||||||||
| ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Judges Under Fire
ALABAMA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | FLORIDA | GEORGIA | IOWA | MASSACHUSETTS | MINNESOTA | MISSOURI | MONTANA | NEBRASKA | NEVADA | NEW YORK | OHIO | U.S. SUPREME COURT
JUDGE MYRON THOMPSON Judge Myron Thompson ordered Judge Ray Moore to remove the large Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building because it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Moore and his supporters have voiced their criticism of the decision. Supporters of the Ten Commandments advocated Thompson’s impeachment because of his decision. The Supporters of the Ten Commandments, led by Rev. Franklin Raddish, started a petition drive to remove Thompson. Raddish charged Judge Thompson with “trying to de-Christianize America.” The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Thompson’s ruling.
Ken
Spear, Federal judge comes under fire, Montgomery Advertiser, Nov. 1,
2003. JUDGE PHYLLIS HAMILTON There was wide criticism following Judge Hamilton’s controversial decision declaring the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional. Hamilton struck down the law reasoning it’s language placed an undue burden on a woman’s right to have an abortion. A Washington Times editorial and the Christian Coalition called for Hamilton’s impeachment. The President of the Christian Coalition, Roberta Combs, said that after Congress passed the bill to prohibit partial-birth abortion, Hamilton’s “anti-family decisions” were “contrary to the overwhelming will of the American people.” The Christian Coalition also criticized Hamilton’s decision to allow a San Francisco-area school to “become Muslims” for two weeks as part of a history class. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee said the ruling demonstrated Judge Hamilton’s “deep personal hostility to the law.” Christian Coalition condemns decision by left-wing
federal tyrant, Clinton appointed Judge Phyllis Hamilton, overruling
partial-birth abortion law, U.S. Newswire (Press Release), June 1, 2004. JUDGE ALFRED GOODWIN and JUDGE STEPHEN REINHARDT The Ninth Circuit ruling that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional produced criticism against Judges Goodwin and Reinhardt. Politicians and citizens around the country were attacking the 9th Circuit judges. President Bush called the ruling “ridiculous.” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called the decision “nuts” and Sen. Robert Byrd personally attacked the judges calling them “stupid.” Others called for the judges’ impeachment. Goodwin justified the 9th Circuit decision as being consistent with Supreme Court precedent on school prayer. Later, the House took steps to stop the enforcement of the 9th Circuit ruling. The United State Supreme Court reversed the decision because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. David Kravets, Judge says his
ruling on pledge has Supreme Court precedents, 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS Ninth Circuit judges came under fire again when they ruled to delay California’s recall effort for governor because 40,000 votes would not be counted due to flaws in the voting system that was in place. House Majority Leader Tom Delay said the judges were “making a mockery of the judicial system.” Delay called the judges “poster triplets for judicial activism.” Rep. Howard Berman defended the judges arguing: “These judges were appointed to life terms so that they would make decisions based on principles and justice and not on the politics of the moment.” Because of the 9th Circuit’s controversial rulings, lawmakers have tried to geographically split the 9th Circuit. Richard Riordan, Political bias drives justices’ delay
of recall, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 16, 2003. JUDGE JOHN
COUGHLIN FLORIDA SUPREME COURT A number of Florida citizens have criticized the Florida Supreme Court since its decision in Bush v. Gore. Former House Speaker Jon Mills stated, “I think there was some hostility that grew out of Bush v. Gore, and that gets played out as accusations of ‘activist’ judges.” In 2003, a Palm Beach County commissioner was fined after taking excessive contributions in an effort to remove the three Florida Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of Al Gore during the 2000 election recount. Since the recount decision, lawmakers have considered numerous proposals that have the potential to harm judicial independence. During the 2001 legislative session, U.S. House Speaker Tom Feeney attempted to institute term limits and was considering a return to elections of appellate judges. State Rep. Bruce Kyle unsuccessfully tried to add a provision to a bill that would have effectively forced judges into early retirement.
Robyn Blumner, Lawmakers
should reject proposals that would clip judiciary’s wings, St. Petersburg
Times, Feb. 18, 2001.
JUDGE DOUGLAS BAIRD Governor Jeb Bush wanted to remove Judge Baird from a case involving the constitutionality of a husband’s ability to remove his wife’s feeding tube after she suffered brain damage. The legislature and Bush reacted to Baird’s decision in allowing the removal of the feeding tube by passing “Terri’s Law,” causing the feeding tube to be reinserted. Baird declared the law unconstitutional because it intruded on Terri Schiavo’s privacy rights. Bush stated in an affidavit for removal: “Baird cannot continue to preside over this matter without being swayed by his own personal biases and prejudices in this case.” The Florida Supreme Court struck down “Terri’s Law.”
Gov.
Bush seeks removal of Schiavo judge backers of ‘Terri’s law’ want him off the
case because he has said the law is unconstitutional,
Orlando Sentinel, Nov., 22, 2003.
JUDGE
GEORGE W. GREER Judge Greer faced massive protests beginning with his decision in 2000 that held Terry Schiavo did not want to be kept alive by artificial means, that she was in a persistent vegetative state, and that her feeding tube could be removed. Wesley J. Smith from the Discovery Institute said “Judge Greer’s performance has been so deficient that he should be removed from the case forthwith, if not impeached.” In 2003, the attorney for Terry Schiavo’s parents accused Greer of being biased and asked him to step down from the case. Greer ran for re-election in 2004 and protesters sided with his opponent. In 2005, Greer received hundreds of e-mails and letters from protesters who called for his impeachment. As a result of the protests, Greer had deputies escort him to and from work. Judge Greer’s decision was not overturned on appeal. William R. Levesque, Quiet judge persists in Schiavo maelstrom, St. Petersburg Times, Mar. 6, 2005. JUDGE WILLIAM O’KELLEYU.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia Judge O’Kelley was criticized after he ordered the county to remove the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. A local organization called the Ten Commandments Support Committee pushed for O’Kelley’s impeachment. Nancy Schaefer, president of Family Concerns stated, “Judge William O’Kelley ignored the clear message of the U.S. Constitution and substituted his opinion that turned two centuries of America’s history and heritage upside down.” Pearce Adams, Commandments group wants judge out, Gainesville Times, Nov. 21, 2003. Group to appeal ruling to remove public displays of Ten Commandments, Associated Press, Nov. 22, 2003. Letters to the Editor, Gainesville Times, Dec. 5, 2003. Turner v. Habersham County, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2003).
CHIEF
JUSTICE LOUIS LAVORATO After the Iowa Supreme Court held a state law unconstitutional that imposed a higher tax rate on racetrack casinos than on riverboat casinos, there was a small uproar in the state legislature. Attacks began because the ruling would ultimately cost the state a great deal of money. Sen. Kenneth Veenstra encouraged voters to demonstrate their disagreement with the justices by removing them in the November retention election. Iowa House Speaker Christopher Rants stated in a newsletter, “The ruling puts into serious jeopardy the balance of power between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches in Iowa. Now our Supreme Court believes that they also have the right to legislate.” AJS Executive Director Allan Sobel responded to this attack on the Iowa Supreme Court by arguing for the continued need for an independent judiciary. Frank Santiago, Iowa lawmaker urges removal of four
justices, The Des Moines Register, Feb. 20, 2004. JUDGE JEFFERY NEARY Judge Neary faced criticism after a 2003 ruling that terminated a civil union between two lesbians. Neary said that a stipulated agreement was presented to him; thinking it was routine, he said he signed it without realizing it was ending a relationship between two women. He later amended his ruling, stating that Iowa courts lack jurisdiction to grant dissolution of a marriage, but ruled that the Vermont civil union was terminated. Neary said legislators and the state supreme court should address the issue of whether Iowa law recognizes same sex civil unions. Various organizations expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling. Representative Steve King voiced his disapproval, saying the decree “recognized and dissolved a relationship that does not exist under Iowa law.” King pointed to the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton in 1996 as providing states the protection from such situations. “This is not about whether Judge Neary is a good neighbor or friend. It is about stopping the runaway judiciary from forcing same-sex marriage on Americans, on Iowans,” King said in a press release. Jesse Claeys, Neary gets support, criticism during
Orange City sessions, Sioux City Journal, Oct. 12, 2004. CHIEF
JUSTICE MARGARET MARSHALL An organization opposing gay marriage, Article 8 Alliance, called for the removal of Chief Justice Marshall after Marshall wrote the majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Rep. Emile Goguen presented a proposal to remove all four of the justices who comprised the majority. Massachusetts Bar Association president Richard Van Nostrand discouraged Marshall’s removal. Nostrand stated: “We don’t want to go down a path that would cause judges to fear removal from their position for making unpopular decisions. It essentially punishes the judges for doing their job.”
Matthew Rodriguez, Protesters
urge removal of SJC justices target four who back gay marriage, Boston
Globe, Feb. 19, 2004. JUDGE
JAMES ROSENBAUM Judge Rosenbaum came under fire after he testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee against a bill that would reinstate longer sentences for first-time drug offenders. While Rosenbaum was testifying he alerted the committee to instances when he had not followed the minimum sentencing guidelines. A subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary then investigated Rosenbaum’s records and his departures from the guidelines, saying he had “a record of hostility to the federal sentencing guidelines.” The subcommittee asserted that Rosenbaum had provided misleading representations about sentences issued in his court, insinuating sentences were longer than the ones handed down. The report included more than 20 pages criticizing Rosenbaum. Rep. Sensenbrenner defended his investigation of Rosenbaum at the U.S. Judicial Conference claiming the panel was exercising its constitutional duty. Susan Schmidt, Judge accused of misleading House panel,
Washington Post, Nov. 6, 2002. JUDGE THOMAS SCHROEDER As reported in the Spokesman Review, “many fingers are pointing at the Becker County judge and prosecutor.” Schroeder has faced criticism following the capture of Joseph Edward Duncan III – the man accused of kidnapping Shasta Groene, 8, and her 9-year-old brother, Dylan. The siblings’ mother, 13-year-old brother, and their mother’s boyfriend were all killed in their home May 16, 2005. Duncan was found in a restaurant with Shasta, and Dylan was killed. At the time of the killings and kidnappings, Duncan was out on bail in a molestation case over which Schroeder presided. Duncan was a Level 3 sex offender – considered the most likely to re-offend. In the Minnesota case in which Schroeder set bail, Duncan allegedly advanced toward two boys with a video camera and pulled down the shorts of a 6-year-old boy and molested him. He had also spent more than 12 years in prison for raping a 14-year-old boy. The popular press was quick to report on the relatively low $15,000 bail Schroeder set for Duncan. On his Fox News talk show, Bill O’Reilly spotlighted what he called “judges and politicians who are soft on convicted child sex offenders,” saying “They’re all over the country . . . and we, the people, must demand laws that take sentencing discretion away from the judges.” He described Schroeder as being too lazy to inquire about Duncan’s record “so one little boy is dead and another little girl brutalized. Way to go, Judge Schroeder.” MN judge that released Duncan knew he was a convicted
sex offender, KHQ-TBV, MSNBC.com,
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8512103. JUDGE SCOTT WRIGHT State Representative Ed Emery asked the Missouri legislature to consider a resolution to impeach Judge Wright because of Wright’s rulings regarding abortion. Emery’s attack was launched after Wright ruled that a pregnant woman could not be deported because her unborn child is considered a citizen. Emery argued Wright’s decisions were “arbitrary and capricious” and inconsist with his previous abortion rulings. “It would seem that he finds it illegal to deport a citizen, but perfectly legal to kill the same citizen . . . Is this what is meant by legislating from the bench?” Wright decided the deportation case under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Legislator urges impeachment of federal judge,
Associated Press, Apr. 2, 2004. St. Louis prosecutors allegedly attempted to remove criminal cases from Judge Evelyn Baker because they consider Baker too lenient in her sentencing decisions. St. Louis lawyers told reporters that Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, the city’s head prosecutor, was concerned about sentences handed down by Baker. Joyce said she wouldn’t comment on any particular judge, but she will call for a change of judge whenever she believes “it is in the best interest of justice, and the victims' and citizens' safety.” Baker reacted by claiming the prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations are “ridiculous.” Baker expressed concern with the timely and effective administration of justice if prosecutors continue to disqualify her from criminal cases, causing more delays. Baker defended herself by asserting she adheres to the state’s sentencing guidelines and believes this tactic is “an attempt to control the bench.” Joyce acknowledged that more than 150 motions had been filed by her attorneys to remove cases from Baker. Baker was also criticized after the 2000 presidential election when she issued an order to keep polls open until 10 p.m. The polls were to close at 7 p.m., but she said the Board of Election Commissioners “failed to live up to its duty to the voters of the city" because of problems at the voting booths. When attorneys for George W. Bush appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, they won and polls closed immediately. Sen. Kit Bond said, “"I'm here to tell you that I've seen this fraud before. This election is too important to allow the Democratic machine in the city of St. Louis to steal.” After election judges left ballots and ballot boxes unattended at 7 p.m., the chairwoman of the state’s Republican Party, Ann Wagner, expressed her dissatisfaction, saying it was a “scandal-ridden election.” Peter Shinkle, Prosecutors are seeking removal of judge
from cases; disagreement centers on sentencing, lawyers say, St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, Mar. 12, 2004. JUDGE JEFFREY SHERLOCK Ken Miller, a candidate for governor, called for Judge Sherlock’s impeachment claiming Sherlock exceeded his authority after he declared Montana’s system of funding schools unconstitutional. Miller cited numerous other rulings when Sherlock overturned abortion restrictions. Miller believes these rulings demonstrate Sherlock’s antipathy for the will of the people and claims he is legislating from the bench. Bob Anez, Candidate: Judge should be ousted for ruling, Helena Independent Record, Apr. 21, 2004. JUDGE RICHARD KOPF U.S. Rep. Steve King held a press conference criticizing what he called “activist judges,” in the finals days of a Nebraska trial challenging a federal ban on “partial-birth” abortions. Judge Kopf defended the right of the courts to review the legislation. Rep. King stood outside the courthouse saying the country must “rein in the runaway judiciary. Let the people speak." Kopf responded to the attacks by calling them “stupid and superficial,” and explained he does not know any judge who would decide a case based on personal beliefs. Robynn Tysver, Judge hears final pleas on
“partial-birth” abortion, Omaha World Herald, June 3, 2004. CHIEF JUSTICE DEBORAH AGOSTI In 2003, then Chief Justice Agosti was the target of a recall effort by a group of political activists. Agosti came under fire after writing the majority opinion that held the legislature’s duty to fund public education took priority over the constitutional requirement that tax bills be passed by a two-thirds majority. Although the recall effort failed, Agosti was to face a re-election campaign after the controversial ruling. One of Agosti’s challengers, John Mason, said: “…a lot of people and organizations are focused on the Supreme Court race because they’ve come to realize how out of touch this Supreme Court can be with their interests.” Agosti, however, announced that she would not seek re-election. Sean Whaley, Justices targeted
for recall, Las Vegas Review-Journal, July 17, 2003. JUDGE SHIRA SCHEINDLIN Judge Scheindlin was criticized after a 2002 ruling in which she dismissed charges against Osama Awadallah who was charged with lying to a grand jury about knowing three of the September 11th hijackers. Judge Scheindlin found that Awadallah was illegally held under a material witness warrant. The decision was overturned and charges were later re-filed. After Judge Scheindlin ruled on an evidentiary issue, prosecutors appealed and asked that Judge Scheindlin be removed from the case. Prosecutors said Scheindin “unfairly criticized the Government even when ruling in its favor” and skewed the description of Awadallah’s testimony in his favor. Douglas J. Hagmann, The
strange case of Osama Awadallah & the failure of the U.S. justice system,
Northeast Intelligence Network,
www.homelandsecurityus.com, May 26, 2005. JUDGE
ROBERT SWEET Judge Sweet ruled that certain police practices at large demonstrations were not allowed, including blanket searches of bulky bags, unless there was a probable threat. Police responded by saying that it was a dangerous time and this would limit their ability to do their job. The president of the Detectives Endowment Association said the ruling would be “giving an open door to terrorists, and further handcuffing police at a time they should be given a little bit more latitude.” Judge Sweet said the ruling was to “define a resolution which can serve to encourage free expression in a secure society.” Robert
Gearty and Michelle McPhee, Cops rip judge: “It’s giving an open door to
terrorists,” New York Daily News, July 20, 2004. JUSTICE ANDREW DOUGLAS Capital University law professor, David Mayer, advocated impeaching four members of the Ohio Supreme Court for various rulings, claiming the court usurped legislative power. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the lack of funding for public schools was unconstitutional. Mayer argued the legislature does not even have to follow the court’s ruling. Ohio State Bar Association president defended the Supreme Court saying, “It is acceptable to criticize the decisions of the court. Attacks on the independence of the judiciary, however, simply result in the weakening of the democratic system of government from which all of our freedoms flow.” David Mayer, Legislature
should oust four justices, Columbus Dispatch, June 6, 2001. CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST The Oregon Democratic Party organized an impeachment effort in July 2001 against the five U.S. Supreme Court justices who stopped the Florida recount in Bush v. Gore the year before. The Oregon Democratic Party’s executive committee voted to pursue impeachment and called for a Congressional impeachment inquiry. Charles Porter began the campaign to impeach because he argues the justices “betrayed their country” by acting more like political partisans than judges. An editorial argued the Democratic Party was going too far and stated, “They’re prepared to cashier sitting justices en masse based on one decision that didn’t break their way.” Editorial, Justices aid Bush
coup d’etat, Portland Oregonian, May 25, 2001. JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA Justice Scalia came under fire after he refused to recuse himself in a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney whom Scalia had recently accompanied on a duck hunting trip. The Sierra Club sued Cheney to force him to release the records of the National Energy Policy Development Group that Cheney directed. Editorials blasted Scalia for his refusal to disqualify himself arguing his actions would “undermine public trust in the court’s impartiality.” Congress also addressed the media clamor for recusal. U.S. Reps. John Conyers and Howard Berman addressed the congressional republican leadership and advocated the laws should be tightened to prevent future conflicts of interest. Justice Scalia addressed the controversy in a statement defending his decision, “If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I imagined.” House Democrats call for
hearings on high court conflicts of interest, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 7,
2004. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion in Roper v. Simmons, a case decided March 1, 2005, holding that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the execution of minors. Kennedy angered a number of representatives, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who said Kennedy’s decision was “outrageous,” and that he was writing decisions based on foreign law and not the U.S. Constitution. DeLay said the judiciary is “activist” and “isolated from the American people.” Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association said, “If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well.” Conservative Phyllis Schlafly agreed that Kennedy’s opinion “is a good ground of impeachment.” U.S. Supreme Court: Roper v. Simmons, DPIC Summary,
Death Penalty Information Center,
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, Accessed July 18, 2005. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
