Outspoken judge faces formal charges

[Robbien]

Source: Arkansas News Bureau

LITTLE ROCK - The state panel that disciplines judges formally charged Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge Wendell Griffen on Monday with violating the code of judicial conduct by making public comments about the Bush administration, the Iraq war and other topics. The Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission voted 5-3 at a March 16 probable cause hearing to bring formal charges against Griffen and conduct a full disciplinary hearing.

<snip>

-Griffen was reported to have criticized Bush's nomination of John Roberts for chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Sept. 8, 2005, speech at the National Baptist Convention USA in Atlanta. He is a former pastor and official of the convention.

-He was reported to have criticized the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina, Vice President Dick Cheney, the "Christian right," Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the late President Ronald Reagan in a Sept. 20, 2005, speech to the Arkansas Chapter of the NAACP.

-He was reported to expressed "wholehearted support" for a minimum wage increase at a Jan. 19, 2006, news conference on the steps of Christ Episcopal Church in Little Rock.

-He was reported to have spoken out against the Iraq war and people who speak negatively of immigrants and homosexuals in an Oct. 19, 2006, speech at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Fayetteville.

-He authored an opinion piece criticizing of some of the Bush administration's policies that was published Oct. 26, 2006, in the Arkansas Times weekly newspaper.

Griffen said at the probable cause hearing last month that none of the issues on which he commented was pending in his court. Although the judicial code does prohibit judges from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office, Griffen said his comments about Roberts did not violate the code because Roberts was a presidential nominee for a federal seat, not a political candidate in Arkansas.

Read more: http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/04/24/News/341816.html

---

This is why the investigation of the Attorney Purge is needed.

I expect Griffen is their definition of activist judge.

[Fresh_Start]

1. did any judges approve of Roberts publically?

did they get booted too?

[jwirr]

2. Did this judge make these remarks as a private citizen or did he

do this while wearing the robes of his profession from the bench? The Hatch Act would not allow the latter but as far as I know we do not give up our right to freedom of speech when we take a job working for the government.

[happyslug]

7. HE is a STATE JUDGE, so the Hatch act does NOT apply

The Hatch act only applies ot Federal Employees, which this Judge IS NOT.

http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

From the Office of Speical Counsel of the US Attorney General (repeated in the wikipedia article above):

These federal and D.C. employees may-

* be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
* register and vote as they choose
* assist in voter registration drives
* express opinions about candidates and issues
* contribute money to political organizations
* attend political fundraising functions
* attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
* join and be an active member of a political party or club
* sign nominating petitions
* campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
* campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
* distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
* hold office in political clubs or parties

These federal and D.C. employees may not-

* use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
* solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
* solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* engage in political activity while:
o on duty
o in a government office
o wearing an official uniform
o using a government vehicle
* wear partisan political buttons on duty

[LiberalFighter]

8. There is also I believe the Little Hatch Act for states

But would again I believe only apply to state activities.

[happyslug]

11. Depends on the state, if the State passed one.

Now, some state employees come under the Hatch Act itself, but these are limited to what is in effect federal employees who just happen to be hired by the State instead of the Federal Government (Most such jobs related to NEw Deal programs, for there was some questions in the 1930s whether the New Deal was constitutional, so Congress set up programs as State programs but federally funded, for example Social Security). People tend to forget SociaL Security is technically a State Program. The Federal Government set up Social Security as an A"gent" of the states. Any State can opt out of Social Security so that its residents can NOT collect Social Security, but such state's residents MUST still pay the Social Security tax (It was clear even in the 1930s that the Federal Government could pass and collect a Social Security Tax). Thus in the 1930s it was possible for any state to refuse to participate in the Social Security program, but if it did so, its citizens still had to pay social security taxes. Thus every state passed an act authorizing the Federal Government to act as its agent to distribute Social Security Benefits. Parts of the Social Security Program is still run by each state, but under the authority and tax revenue of the Federal Government. Such State employees are subject to the Hatch Act itself, in addition to any state Little Hatch Act.

Even under the Hatch Act (as modified in 1994) the judge can state his own opinion, which is what he is doing here (One exception if it relates to a case in front of him, but no such case is in front of this judge in regards to these comments).

[Miss Chybil]

3. This is surreal.

It's almost like the Inquisition with less blood.

[damntexdem]

5. But don't go counting the drops of blood prematurely.

[damntexdem]

4. Apparently, in Arkansas, displaying good sense is grounds for disqualification.

I'm glad I don't live there.

[Ian David]

6. Not a loyal Bushie? You're gonna be punished. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

9. I would think that the Baptist Convention and the Episcopal Church

would not or should not violate their judicial conduct code.

The opinion piece publish possibly might violate it. I would like to know if there have been any other opinion pieces published by judges and whether any action was taken.

[Gabi Hayes]

10. my sister's a judge. sending her this story. we've talked about this

sort of thing, as she's VERY radical, and chafes at her mostly conservative surroundings (did a pro bono death penalty case at the same Lousiana prison as the one in Dead Man Walking...met with Sister Helen Prejean as part of her prep. She once yelled at Wolfie as he sat outside her courthouse during the 04 presidential campaign, his CNN tour bus parked under her window)

I KNOW she can't go to things like Iowa caucus events, can't appear at political rallies....that sort of thing, and I'm sure the judicial canon is different, state by state, but I'm curious to see what she has to say about this.

I'll bet there's something specific in Arkansas code that applies to what the judge said

not that I disagree with anything he appears to have said, but there is the letter of the law, and all that crap.

I hope he didn't overstep his bounds, because I'd think this sort of thing is pretty cut and dried.