Posted by monroefreedman on Monday, November, 29, 2010
The new (4th) edition of Understanding Lawyers’ Ethics has a 40-page chapter on Judges’ Ethics. Sections include (among others):
THE PRACTICAL ADVANTAGES OF AN APPEARANCES RULE
SOME IMPLIED EXCEPTIONS TO DISQUALIFICATION
 The Judicial Source Exception
 Disqualification Based on a Judge’s Prior Commitment to Issues or Causes
 Disqualification Based on the Judge’s Religion, Race, or Gender
 Disqualification Based on an Implied Bias for or Against a Class of Litigants
 The Rule of Necessity
 Friendships Between Judges and Lawyers Appearing Before Them
ELECTED JUDGES AND DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
JUSTICE SCALIA’S DENIAL OF RECUSAL IN THE CHENEY
JUSTICE SCALIA’S FAILURE TO RECUSE HIMSELF IN
BUSH v. GORE
Posted in Canon 3, Judicial Campaigns, Judicial Disqualification & Recusal, Judicial Ethics Generally, Judicial Selection | Leave a Comment »
Posted by judicialethicsforum on Sunday, November, 21, 2010
An instant classic, The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change, has been released for several months now. The study charts a decade of degeneration in judicial elections in the United States. Quite deservingly, the study has already received significant publicity (and it even comes complete with a foreword by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor), but we would be remiss not to mention it here as well.
Posted in Judicial Campaigns, Judicial Disqualification & Recusal, Judicial Ethics Generally | 1 Comment »
Posted by kswisher on Sunday, November, 21, 2010
It has been tough lately to keep up with the Justices of the Supreme Court and their ethics. Various allegations recently have been lodged against various justices: Justice Scalia (Koch-brothers-conspiring); Justice Thomas (same, and Tea-Party-marrying); Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (robo-calling); and Justice Alito (Spectator-supporting). To be sure, much of this is much ado about nothing, but some of it is about something (try, for instance, the appearance of impartiality), which is why I like and agree with the title of Dahlia Lithwick’s recent piece in Slate — Running with Gavels: Justices Need to Set Clearer Rules About Partisan Political Activity. Click on it for a good current-events survey of the Justices and their political affairs.
UPDATE: By agreeing to speak semi-privately to the Tea Party Caucus, Justice Scalia has just upped his bid to be the most controversial Supreme Court Justice in terms of partisanship and disqualification. For a good discussion of the issues, click on Legal Ethics Forum.
Posted in Judicial Ethics Generally | Leave a Comment »