Canon of Judicial Conduct

Our courts can not function unless they are impartial, and the conduct of judges goes a long way toward lending that air of impartiality. It is so essential, in fact, that there are strictures on what a judge may and may not do in public, on their own time, intended to bolster the public's confidence in their impartiality. In some states, like CT, it is reduced to writing for all to see. In other states, it is a tradition, much like common law: known and practiced. even if not wholly codified. These standards are known, among other names, as the canon of judicial conduct.

I mention this because of the current Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Most legislators are attorneys, and they should know the canon of judicial conduct. Yet every confirmation hearing that arises, the Democrats ask questions that would require the appointee violate those standards by answering. Then, they get all indignant that the appointee refuses to answer (is not allowed to answer).

Some may argue that Republicans ask the same kind of grandstanding questions. And it is true that Republicans sometimes grandstand, but their questions usually address valid concerns that the appointee has already broken or, by their actions, is likely to break that canon. They tend to be probative and appropriate questions.

When Senators like Cory Booker and Richard Blumenthal ask questions that would require the appointee to violate the canon of judicial conduct in their answer, the chair should interve. Confirmation hearings are meant to be fact-finding interrogatories, not an opportunity for virtue signaling. Period.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Canon of Judicial Conduct