Judicial impartiality is not about religion: it's about political orientation. There is no problem in having a Jew judge a Muslim, nor is there a problem with a Democratically appointed Judge presiding over the Delay trial. The issue is that this particular judge has donated money to a cause that is very clearly not impartial on the subject of the Delay trial. If it turns out that the Delay shirt was published after the Judge made his donation, then the judge should not recuse himself. If the money was donated after the shirt was made, however, he should definitely recuse himself.
Examples where recusal makes sense:
KKK member judging the trial of a black man
Moveon.org contributor judging Bush v. Gore
Delay campaign contributor judging Tom Delay
NARAL contributor deciding the legality of a form of abortion
The purpose of recusal is to avoid partial judges. So, if this Judge donated money to an organization that publically said Delay was guilty (before he was even indicted, mind you), then he should recuse himself... unless he donated the money before moveon adopted that position.
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|