Edward A Hartnett
Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:42:42 -0700
I haven't been able to find the motion seeking recusal (has anyone seen it?), but press accounts indicate that it was predicated, at least in part, on a claimed violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The relevant provision would seem to be:
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES Canon 3(A)(6) A judge should avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action, requiring similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This proscription does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge's official duties, to the explanation of court procedures, or to a scholarly presentation made for purposes of legal education. _________ Under this canon, statements in a judicial opinion (including those indicating a plan to overrule when enough votes are at hand), scholarly articles or speeches, or even statements about the merits of purely hypothetical cases would appear to be permissible, while other public comments about the merits of a pending (or impending) case would not. The code of conduct might not be precisely congruent with appropriate recusal standards, but it does seem to provide a reasonable basis for a decision to recuse. In an interesting irony, Newdow was quoted before the decision to recuse as saying, "It would be cool if he does [recuse]. God would be speaking." http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1063212045712 Ed Hartnett Seton Hall