Democrats’ hypocrisy on judicial impartiality is evident from Wisconsin to Washington.
The Importance of Impartiality in the Justice System
The statues of Lady Justice that stand outside courthouses across the country show her blindfolded for a reason: They represent the fundamental commitment of our justice system to fair, impartial judges. That concept is not only an aspiration, but a constitutional guarantee: Inherent in the 14th Amendment’s promise of “due process of law” is the principle that judges who hear cases at all levels will be fair, unbiased, and open-minded as to the litigants and issues before them.
That promise is being put to the test in my home state of Wisconsin, where newly elected Justice Janet Protasiewicz is currently considering a motion to recuse from a case involving the state’s legislative districts. Wisconsin elects its judges, and during the campaign last spring then-Judge Protasiewicz went further than any previous candidate in announcing her views on the campaign trail. Although the maps were approved 17 months ago by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the law has not changed, Judge Protasiewicz called the maps “gerrymandered,” “rigged,” “unfair,” and “wrong,” going so far as to say that “anybody with any sense knows our maps are rigged.” She said it multiple times, in multiple places, with intention. She knew the issue would motivate Democrat voters to turn out, and she played that card boldly, deciding to prioritize electoral success over ethical expectations.
What is more, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin also heard her aggressive rhetoric loud and clear. The party, which can take unlimited funds into its coffers and make unlimited transfers to candidates, ultimately gave almost $10 million to her campaign in direct donations.
Immediately following her election last April, left-wing activists in Wisconsin promised a petition to revisit the maps. But they did not file their lawsuit right away — they waited several months during the lame-duck tenure of the prior justice and then filed their petition demanding immediate action the day after Justice Protasiewicz was sworn in. Their contrived timeline is the definition of judge-shopping.
Now that the case is pending, some in Wisconsin want to rush into a debate about impeachment and misconduct in office, but that puts the cart before the horse. The first step is simple and obvious: Protasiewicz should recuse from the case. Her campaign activities may have been protected by the First Amendment, but that does not mean her sitting on the case does not violate the due-process guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
As Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, leader of the liberal block on the court, wrote in 2015, “A fundamental principle of our democracy is that judges must be perceived as beyond price.” As a result, “the right to an impartial decisionmaker stretches beyond the absence of actual bias to encompass the appearance of bias as well.” In this instance, Protasiewicz’s repeated, intentional comments communicating her views about this particular case mean “a reasonable person could question the judge’s impartiality.”
Of course, Democrats in Wisconsin, having sunk millions into her campaign, are loath to see her recuse from the case. The irony is that while Wisconsin Democrats are proclaiming to the high heavens the importance of a full bench and the priority of her free speech rights, Democrats in D.C. are trying to get Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself because he gave a news interview to an attorney who moonlights as a journalist, and that lawyer is now on one of the cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ten Democrat senators who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a joint letter saying anything short of recusal by Alito would cause “damage to public confidence in the Court.” Alito filed a short opinion explaining the long tradition of justices sitting on cases involving news outlets to whom they had also given interviews, but the broader point remains the disconnect between D.C. Democrats, who are insisting on artificial adherence to newly elevated ethical standards, and Wisconsin Democrats, who are ready to steamroll long-standing ethics expectations on their way to additional legislative seats.
True justice is necessarily impartial, neutral, and detached. Impartiality means the absence of bias or prejudice. It means maintaining an open mind. And it means not only the substance of impartiality but also the appearance of it, to ensure public confidence in our courts. Because that is not present here, the right thing to do is for Justice Protasiewicz to step aside in this case.
How does a judge’s public statements expressing a strong opinion about a case affect the public’s trust in their fairness and impartiality?
Gn, are crying foul and claiming that any motion to recuse is merely a political ploy. But this is about more than politics. It is about the integrity of our justice system and the public’s confidence in it. Without impartial judges, the rule of law crumbles and justice becomes arbitrary and unreliable.
Judges must not only be impartial, but they must also be seen as impartial. It is not enough for a judge to truly believe they can set aside their personal biases and decide a case based solely on the law and the facts. They must also avoid creating even the appearance of bias. This is not a new concept; it is a long-standing principle of our legal system.
When a judge makes public statements expressing a strong opinion about a case they are assigned to hear, it raises legitimate concerns about their ability to approach the case with an open mind. It undermines the public’s trust in their fairness and impartiality. And it sets a dangerous precedent that allows judges to pick and choose which cases they want to handle based on their personal beliefs.
Justice Protasiewicz’s comments clearly demonstrate her bias and lack of objectivity in this particular case. She has publicly declared that she believes the legislative districts in question are gerrymandered and unfair. This kind of prejudgment is not only inappropriate but also undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Recusing from this case is not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing; it is a necessary step to protect the integrity of the justice system. It ensures that the litigants before the court have a fair and unbiased tribunal. It safeguards the reputation of the judiciary and maintains public confidence in its ability to deliver justice.
Some may argue that judges are entitled to their own opinions and should not be punished for expressing them. While this is true to some extent, judges also have a responsibility to uphold the principles of fairness and impartiality that are essential to our justice system. When a judge goes beyond expressing a personal opinion and actively campaigns against a legal decision, it raises serious doubts about their ability to fulfill that responsibility.
Ultimately, the importance of impartiality in the justice system cannot be overstated. It is the cornerstone of our legal system and the foundation upon which justice is built. Without it, the rule of law is undermined, and the rights and liberties of individuals are at risk. Justice Protasiewicz should recognize the significance of impartiality and recuse herself from this case. It is not only the right thing to do; it is essential to preserving the integrity of our justice system.
Only by upholding the principles of fairness and impartiality can we ensure that justice is blind and that all individuals are treated equally under the law.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...