Should the Delay Judge Recuse?
 

Delay wants a new judge because the current one is to democratic. Should this judge recuse? Personally I'd think that this judge should be able to keep politics from the law, if not then there is an easy appeal.

There has been a history of republicans claiming this also. For instance: Remember the Cheny/Rhenquist fiasco? Or the recent John Robberts/Gonzalas case.

I thought I heard on the news tonight that it was because the judge contributes money to MoveOn.org which is currently posting a "Fire Tom Delay" campaign and calling him a crook. I'm not sure whether that is enough of a reason for him to recuse himself.

yeah he claims he contributed to them to help get kerry reelected. but if this is considered a conflict of interest then Cheny duck hunting with the judge and Roberts being offered a job by the administration should also be considered a conflict of interest.

I don't know about Roberts, but many adminstration appointments and nominations have definitely been conflicts of interest.

This one might be too, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm a fan of Move On, myself (which probably isn't a surprise to anybody). I doubt if I could be objective if I were judging DeLay's case. I'm bringing my opinion to the table--I think the guy's dirtier than hell, I think he's deeply harmful to America, and I hope he gets the book thrown at him. If I were that judge, I'd probably have to recuse myself.

Now, the fact that the judge HASN'T recused himself means HE thinks it's not an issue. DeLay screaming about this just makes him look (more) like a little boy who's not getting his way. It's not smart politics, which is uncharactaristic for him. Shows you the level of panic he's starting to exhibit, doesn't it?

Speaking of which, anybody else see a hint of mania behind the smile in Tommy's mug shot?

We're definately on the same page here.
As far as whether Judge Perkins should recuse himself...I dunno. So Delay gets his new venue, and his new judge. New judge just happens to be a Republican. The Democrats now scream foul...and perhaps justifiably so. Regardless, this could go on forever. The gap between the left and the right isn't so much a gap anymore, so much as it's becoming a chasm. I don't believe that to be in the best interests of the country, and frankly...it concerns me no small amount.
For what it's worth...I, too, believe that Delay is dirtier than hell. I also feel that while his political career is a smoking ruins, he will see not see so much as a day in prison. But, we'll just have to wait and see.

Here's the test: if it were a Democrat being indicted by a Republican DA, and the judge had given money not only to Bush but to a radical Republican PAC, what should happen?

Once you answer that one, you have the answer to the question posed.

Well, first off, this is the judge, not the D.A.

And we just seated a new Republican chief justice who spent his entire hearing proclaiming his personal views would not interfere with his rulings.

I don't think this argument will go far.

I'd say that short of leading a DeLay lynch mob, the judge couldn't have demonstrated his bias any more clearly.

so maybe all christian judges should recuse themselves from trials involving atheists or muslims or jews because, since they've gone to church, they've demonstrated their bias pretty clearly.

I'm an attorney that has been a DA (well, assistant) and a judge at times. I know the difference, I was just trying to set the mirror image of the Delay case.

I'm not making the legal argument, I'm taking the "let's be consistent" position. To be honest, I've been in front of judges that ran as Democrats and handled cases involving known Republican, and there was never an issue of political bias.

But given the Delay case is based on politics--political contributions, to be exact, then the political leaning of the impartial bench has to be considered. This judge is a bit more active in politics than I'd like to see in a trial judge--the one that rules on admissibility of evidence and on pretrial motions. I prefer the system where judges run as non-partisans, and then there is no questions such as are being raised here.

And I agree with a previous suggestion that handing the case off to an active (in the party) Republican judge will look like the fix is in if Delay wins. The answer is to have someone that isn't politically connected, but I'm not sure that can happen in Texas; I'd defer to someone in that state.

Let me put it this way. If I were a Jewish politician, I wouldn't want my case to be heard by a judge who donates to Louis Farrakhan.

Sometimes, moveon.org makes Brother Louie look impartial.

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.

and how would an evangelical christian judge who thinks that anyone who isn't also an evangelical christian is a sinner and going to hell any different than your examples above?

Because under your example, an evangelical Christian is making a decision on secular law. It'd be no different than a Christian appearing as a litigant or a defendant before a Jewish judge or an atheist. Fairness on ruling on the law has nothing to do with the person's religious persuasion. If that judge were asked to make a ruling on the state of the soul of the non-Christian, then there'd be a problem.

I've thought about this, and I'm giving Delay's attorneys some credit here for knowing what the law is on recusals in Texas. You really don't want to shoot that gun unless you know it has some bullets in it; the remaining time in a case when you start out saying the judge can't be fair could be most unpleasant.

I think an even better test would be: Do you think you have reason to believe you may not get a fair trial if the judge in your case was giving money to an organization that is currently running a campaign specifically against you and calling you a crook?

That would be a red herring. The judge gave his donation before the 2004 presidential election. So he is not "giving" money. He gave money. So should all past donations be held as evidence exposing a bias even if an organizations current campaign is a different one?

Not in most cases, but if that organization was specifically singling me out and calling me a crook by name and the judge in my case has given financial support to them then I would be concerned.

I would probably not ask for the judge to recuse himself because I think he would most likely go out of his way and maybe go a little overboard to show that he is impartial which might benefit me at trial. :)

I thought the timing was a bit unusual. I'd wait to see if the judge DID actually do something in the early stages before asking him to step aside, under the logic that you espoused--bending over backward in my direction to eliminate any appearance of bias.

i have to disagree. whether it's politics or religion that distinguishes the judge from the accused, it is still a judge with one set of beliefs that is in conflict with the beliefs of the person on trial. our laws are secular, so religion shouldn't matter. and last time i checked, our laws aren't political either (by which i mean they aren't pro/anti-democrat or pro/anti-republican).

so if a democratic judge shouldn't reside over delay's trial, then a christian judge shouldn't rule over a non-christians trial, there could be bias!

Well, a judge is likely to always have a different set of the accused. Judges generally believe in abiding by the law.

At any rate, the democratic and republican parties are not in direct opposition from each other though it may seem so. The fact that they control almost every seat in congress tells us that they are the two most closely aligned parties available. In essence, Delay's attorney wants to argue that a stick is different than a piece of wood, and that sticks can only be made from other sticks.

So the trial is tomorrow. I still have a problem with this whole thing. The idea of being able to hand pick your own judge is scary. This is not a leasure afforded to everyone, only those with lots of power and money. What happens if he gets another democratic judge? Is he going to fight that one too until he gets a conservitive one? At which case does the prosecution have a right to fight that judge?

I do think it is good that this judge is respecting their wishes though and allowing another judge to rule on the matter. Unlike the incidents with Cheny and John Roberts.

delay got a new judge. i hope they appoint a moderate so the trail is fair. if a conservitive judge gets appointed it is going to reak of foul play.

This is exactly what i was worried about. now our entire court system is going to be a mockary and no one will be able to get a fair trial.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174449,00.html