Reply #77: Hello all [View All]

LONG time lurker, first time poster :)

First off, I just wanted to say how great it is to come to a forum where people are so energetic and productive. You guys are quite impressive!

Now, about whether Chief Justice Monyers screwed himself. In two words: hell yes.

It is a paramount principle in judicial ethics that one cannot sit in judgment on his own case. Here, Chief Justice Monyers was clearly a named Defendant.

ABA's model code of ethics, which has essentially been adopted wholeheartedly by the Ohio Supreme Court, requires that justices make sure to avoid not only impropriety, but also any appearance of impropriety. There is nothing more improper than a judge decided a case where he is a named party. Even if the person were to make a completely unbiased decision based firmly in a proper application of the law, the mere fact that the judge is presiding over his own case undermines any credibility and weight the decision may have.

THat being said, there is ample precendent in Ohio law of judges having to recuse themselves for far less -- being related to the Defendant, having the same attornery as a party. Judicial ethics make this case very clear: the Chief Justice should have recused himself IMMEDIATELY.

To be honest, I think that is what Arnebeck expected. But the fact that the Chief Justice threw him a curve ball only works in Arnebeck's interest. Not only does the Chief Justice come off looking like someone who equates the Code of Judical Ethics with toilet paper, but it also reinforces a pattern that's been happening all over Ohio--from the recounts, to the requests of information: a deliberate attempt to take any and all means necessary to stonewall this process. It would have been quite acceptable for the Chief Justice to recuse himself from the case right away. And he probably knew he should, but figured he'd flex his muscles a bit.

Looks like the lawsuit is to be refiled very soon. If I were Arnebeck, I would file a motion to remove the Chief Justice from the presidential case as well. Remember, a critical part of the Bush/Kerry case is the anomoly of Connelly getting more votes than Kerry. The Chief Justice would have to rule on the merits of the Connelly votes either way. So I think Arnebeck has solid ground to remove him from the presidential election case as well. One less Republican on the case. Sounds good to me :)