I disagree that its consistent precedent. For example:
Republic of Panama v. American Tobacco Company, Inc.
No. 99-30685 (5th Cir. 7/20/2000)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-30685-CV0.HTM
In a nutshell, here the judge's former trial association wrote an amicus brief in a different tobacco case. The judge didn't write any of it, but as an officer his name was on it and this creates an implication that he holds sympathetic views for one side. This is very analogous to Kaplan's associate doing DVD antitrust work for Warner Brothers.
> I'm more concerned about your justification of the attack on the
> grounds that "bashing government figures" is a "national past-time".
> That sentiment, it seems to me, is unhealthy for the body
> politic, even if limited to elected politicians.
I strongly disagree. "Question Authority" is far more healthy. Power creates the potential for abuse. The reverence you advocate makes abuse more likely and more harmful. The central design principle of our govenrment is that power must be carefully divided, separated, limited, checked, and balanced. Certainly the most fundamental purpose of free speech is to allow people to criticize the mistakes of their governement.
For what it is worth, I said Kaplan should have recused himself, not that he should be impeached or shot. My view is hardly radical.
> But careless ethical or character attacks on judges is a far
> more serious matter, as it undermines the legitimacy of
> the judicial system generally.
The legitimacy of the judicial system is damaged far worse by judges sitting in cases where their former clients are a party on a subject matter that their firm advised on. You are free to disagree, but I believe Kaplan violated 28 USC 455(a) and (b)(2), and there is nothing "careless" about my opinion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:41 GMT