Introduction
Caperton v. Massey case decision is one of famous and significant decision taken by Supreme Court of United States. The final ruling of the court about the case is stated on 8th June, 2009 and the court decided that it is against the constitution for the Supreme Court judge to hear a case that have had some financial interests involved for the judge from the individual who filed up the case. This decision has also expedited the long lasting debate that whether the judge at higher courts should be elected or whether they should be appointed by the respective committee.
Discussion
The advocates of judge’s election insist that this procedure make them answerable to people and they could work more honestly, fairly and with no pressure from the appointers. On the other hand, another point of view, which is in the favor of appointed judges instead of elected judges argue, that judges should not be elected like political leaders because they should keep themselves away from politics and political demands. Moreover, this point of view suggest that the judges should be appointed according to their qualification, legal status and knowledge and it should be the deciding factor while selecting judges rather than giving this right to the people who would might not select the best available judge according to merits.
People cannot always make the decision that which candidate would be a superior judge and therefore judges should be selected by legislative committee comprised of legal scholars (Hanssen, 1999). Therefore, judges should be selected by appointing committee rather than election process.
This argument of advocates of judge’s election that the appointment of judges would keep them under the influence of appointers and hence it questions that judge’s impartiality is not valid. Since the election of judges by people who run their campaigns would also result in the same dilemma that judges can become biased towards the people who contributed in their campaigns.
Consequently, this fear that the appointment of judges by the committee could be affected by grafts and bribery is also equally prevalent in the election of judges because the people who are spending millions of dollars for the judge’s election campaign can obviously influence the judge impartiality. This would also make the election process questionable because by spending, more one can buy the affiliations of judges for lifetime and it poses greater threat to the constitutional bindings that the judges should always keep themselves unbiased while making any decision or ruling. In fact, various studies suggest that there exists a significant correlation between the contributors who run the campaigns of judges and the decision given in their favor by the judges (Kang & Shepherd, 2010). As a result, in the case of election of judges there is a clear loophole that grafts can get involved.
In United States, although a code of conduct exists if the judges are involved in misconduct but arguably, it is not equally applicable for all the judges. A Judicial conference comprising of chief justices of all the thirteen federal courts and it includes a committee on Codes of Conduct. This committee regularly frames the Code of Conduct for all the judges of United States but these policies are devised by the judges of federal courts. Therefore, in terms of applicability of code of conduct, there exist a fundamental difference between the federal courts and the lower courts. Judicial conference is instituted by Congress, which is meant for the management of lower federal courts. However, there is underlying misconception that since the Judicial Conference is made for framing the policies for lower courts therefore, these policies are not equally applicable for judges of Supreme Court. Since all the judges of court abides by the ethical obligations mentioned in Code of Conduct, therefore the Code of Conduct applicability at the time of misconduct by any judge would also remain the same across the board, be it judge of lower court or the judge of supreme court (Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, 2011). However, since the code of conduct was mainly meant for the benefit of lower federal courts therefore it might not adequately cater for some of the ethical obligations, which are only relevant and unique to the Supreme Court. Therefore, Codes of Conduct should not be considered as the only definitive guiding source of ethics.
In the case of recusals, it is the obligation of judges to disqualify themselves from the cases where the impartiality of judge is being compromised or might be questioned. This governing rule is mentioned in the section 455 of the Title 28 of constitution. According to this section, all the federal courts and the lower courts should have to follow the same procedure in the case of recusal questions and the judges might consult the committee of Judicial conference, their judicial colleagues and also seek guidance from the scholarly publications.
As observed in the case of Caperton v. Massey, decision of judges not to recuse from the case is reviewable by the higher courts. However, there exists one difference in the case of Supreme Court justice while taking the decision of recusal. Although they would follow the same course of Consulting their colleagues, or judicial conference's committee and examining the precedent cases and publications but there is no higher court to review the decision of no recusal if taken by the judges of the Supreme Court. This problem is not sufficiently addressed in the policies devised for the judicial misconduct and it resulted from the command of constitution that there will be only 'one supreme court' (Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, 2011).
However, this limitation on any of justice of Supreme Court is relevant owing to the fact that in case of lower court judge recusal from the case, he can be replaced by another federal judge who can serve in the place of the recused judge. On the other hand, in the case of Supreme Court, all nine members always sit together and if the judge recuses himself/herself just to avoid a controversy he/she is will not be replaceable by any judge of higher court. Therefore, it is the obligations of all Justices of Supreme Court to have a firm believe on the requirement to recuse before taking any decision of withdrawal from any case. This matter can be addressed by forming a judicial committee by Congress, may be comprised of the former judges of Supreme Court, in order to help filling the void created by the recusal decision of Justices.
It is also essential that there should be no political influence and financial pressures on the judges. Congress has commanded all the judges to adhere to the requirements of financial reporting and provisioned the judges to put limitations on the receipt of gifts. The judges are supposed to submit financial disclosure reports including the liabilities, investments and gifts in addition to the non-governmental income. The reports on financial disclosure are filed through the committee of judicial conference. These directions are vital so that judges should not face any financial pressures and to avoid any involvement of act of bribery and political influences (Sample & Pozen, 2007).
When judges are selected through elections, there is an involvement of political influence and political parties might run the campaigns in favor of one candidate against the other. It is important to emphasize that a judge obligation is to serve for keeping justice in the society and s/he should try to avoid any political affiliations with the political parties. It is also equally vital that at the time of re-election a judge should not be held at higher standards than the other candidates for any political office (Geyh, 2003). In fact, it would be better if judges restrain themselves from getting involved in such political posts. If judges are given priorities on other candidate then it will give an impression that they are not impartial in their past tenure and it will question their rulings in the past. In this regard, again it is fundamental to consider the example of Caperton v. Massey case, where a judge decision is overturned by Supreme Court because the judge has given decision in the favor Massey, the person who provided funding for the election campaign of that judge in past.
Conclusion
Caperton v. Massey case has lead to many studies about the responsibilities of judges on recusal decisions. It has also initiated debates on the selection process of judges if the election is the suitable way of selection or whether the appointment by Congress committee is the more convincing procedure to be followed. However, the fundamental change and the right choice of judge’s selection would only emerge when a political determination will be originated to improve the judicial circuitry all together. The very notion of social justice and the societal balance is dependent on this issue and thus, it is significant for all the members of judiciary to accomplish their ethical and legal obligation with good judgment and care.
References
Hanssen, A. F. (1999). The effect of judicial institutions on uncertainty and the rate of litigation: The election versus appointment of state judges. Journal of Legal Studies, 28(1), 205–232.
Kang, M. S., & Shepherd, J. M. (2010). THE PARTISAN PRICE OF JUSTICE : AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. New York University Law Review, 86(69), 69–130.
Sample, J. J., & Pozen, D. E. (2007). Making Judicial Recusal More Rigorous. Judges Journal, 46, 17–24. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=997311
Geyh, C. G. (2003). Why Judicial Elections Stink. Ohio State Law Journal, 64(1), 43–79.
