風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
有害的政治：是時候讓黨派政治坐冷板凳了
Hon. 克裏斯托弗·S·二宮 | 密歇根律師雜誌 2022 年 9 月
司法部門再次麵臨崩潰的危險。 政黨已經采取了試圖將司法武器化的戰略，有些人認為這些戰略正在發揮作用。 這不是秘密或偷偷地進行的。 它是公開的、顯而易見的，甚至成為競選演講中的常規素材。 這不是一個新方法，也不是一個新問題。 幾個世紀以來，人們一直在進行各種控製司法的努力和鬥爭。
隨著本專欄的收尾工作正在進行，一項對美國最高法院法官實行任期限製的提案正在國會等待審議。 除此之外，還有其他正在考慮的增加法官人數的提案以及其他在高等法院創造更多“平衡”的嚐試。
作者恭敬地提出，司法機構應該保持高度獨立和非政治性，特別是當這個國家似乎在政治斷層線上嚴重分裂並且我們的民主製度的根基感到顫抖時。 現在是司法機構重申其獨立性並保持其完整性的時候了。
作為一名現任法官，我並沒有天真或傲慢地認為法官和司法候選人淩駕於傳統的政治紛爭之上。 所有當選官員都必須至少在某種程度上參與這一過程。 盡管我們的國家政治已經變得極端和分裂，但曆史顯然沒有給我們任何教訓。 作為法官，我們當然並不比其他任何人更好或更重要，我們也絕不優於其他兩個政府部門。 但我們與其他兩個分支的不同之處在於一個日益重要的方麵。 除了一些值得注意的例外以及政治在司法部門中至少始終發揮著一定作用的警告和承認之外，我們在履行憲法職責時傳統上和曆史上一直是無黨派的。 至少，這是優秀法學家一直在努力追求的目標，盡管各政黨爭奪權力，希望能夠通過任命與他們政治觀點相同的法官來在曆史上留下自己的印記。 司法確認程序本身已成為一場猜謎遊戲，迫使潛在的司法任命者陷入困境，以避免對尖銳的問題提供任何表麵上的答案。 但正如已故美國最高法院大法官露絲·巴德·金斯伯格（Ruth Bader Ginsburg）指出的那樣，“宣誓公正裁決的法官不能提供任何預測、任何暗示，因為這不僅會表現出對特定案件細節的漠視，還會表現出蔑視”。 整個司法程序。”1
在州和地方層麵，司法職位也同樣被政治化。 司法任期委員會經常麵臨法官或司法候選人是否通過參加政治活動、支持政治候選人或在尋求司法職位時參與公開的政治行為而跨越道德界限的問題。 每個選舉周期，這種行為似乎都更加大膽、更加令人震驚，這讓人們相信，司法部門的卓越地位和引以為豪的傳統正在被一波又一波的政治遊戲所侵蝕。 正如我們都目睹的那樣，如果某項裁決不符合法官的意願，法官受到政治人物公開批評的情況並不少見。 一些政客和評論員甚至認為“保守派”或“自由派”法官會根據法官的推定黨派背景或司法理念做出對他們有利的裁決。 可悲的是，他們常常忽視我們三個政府部門各自的職能和責任。 界限不應該也不應該模糊。
很明顯，一些政客將司法部門僅僅視為支持其政治議程的手段。 然而，司法機關不應成為政治遊戲中的棋子，而需要努力保持其獨立性。 法官受憲法、既定準則、法律和先例的指導和約束。 他們不依賴於任命他們或幫助他們獲得職位的權力。 司法宣誓中沒有提到我們宣誓維護提名或支持我們的政黨的議程。 我們應該誹謗任何試圖成為司法傑佩托的人。 此外，法官或司法候選人想要披著政黨的外衣上台，或者不顧法律地追隨政黨的議程，這是一種巨大的不公正行為，其後果會影響整個司法機構的廉正。 這些是典型的葉子，
需要迅速而有力地將其從司法部門中撤出。
相反，學識淵博的法官應該仔細權衡事實和證據，平等、公正、客觀地適用法律。 理想情況下，案件結果是由仔細考慮和遵守該程序協議決定的。 總是有尊重的辯論和司法哲學的無數變化的空間。 但健康、獨立的司法機構的關鍵可以追溯到憲法——它是法官的指路明燈，並且像直布羅陀岩石一樣穩定。 無論結果是否對法官個人或公眾有吸引力，也無論它是否符合我們的個人或政治信仰，我們的誓言和責任都是維護憲法和法律。 美國最高法院首席大法官約翰·羅伯茨（John Roberts）已經認識到這一原則：“法官必須謙虛地認識到，他們是在先例體係中運作的，而該先例體係是由同樣努力履行司法誓言的其他法官塑造的。”2
在涉及法官、獨立性和政治活動等主題時，《密歇根州司法行為守則》是具體且具有指導意義的。 事實上，《司法法典》第一條的標題是“法官應當維護司法機關的廉正和獨立”。 司法準則的起草者一開始就提到了司法獨立的重要性，這不可能隻是巧合。 教規 1 繼續指出，“獨立和光榮的司法機構對於我們社會的正義是不可或缺的。 法官應參與建立、維持和執行高標準的行為，並親自遵守，以維護司法機關的廉正和獨立。 法官應該始終意識到，司法係統是為了當事人和公眾的利益，而不是司法部門。”
司法規範 2(F) 規定，“法官不應允許作為組織成員的活動對法官以符合《密歇根州司法行為準則》、美國法律的方式履行職責的能力產生懷疑。 這個州，以及密歇根州和美國憲法。” 《司法規範 5》還明確指出，一些監管規範適用於司法候選人以及現任法官。 他們同樣會因司法競選不當行為而受到紀律處分。
《司法法典》第 3(A)(1) 條接著指出：“法官應當忠實於法律並保持專業能力。 法官不應受到黨派利益、公眾呼聲或對批評的恐懼的影響。” 司法規範 7 進一步討論了法官和司法候選人的政治活動。 《司法法典》第 7(A)(1) 條規定，“法官或司法職位候選人不得： (a) 在政黨中擔任任何職務； (b) 代表政黨或非司法候選人發表演講，或公開支持非司法職位的候選人。” 司法準則 7(A)(2) 僅允許有限的政治活動，包括“(a) 參加政治集會； (b) 代表法官本人或代表其他司法候選人在此類集會上發言； (c) 為政黨做出貢獻。”
顯然，密歇根州司法準則的起草者希望確保法官和司法候選人不參與公開的黨派政治。 但試圖限製政治人物是一種不同類型的挑戰，大致相當於將沙子倒入漏勺中。 一個常見的問題是政黨或黨派候選人代表法官競選，包括在黨派文獻中，或以其他方式聲稱或暗示法官或候選人是其部落的成員。 雖然讓法官和司法候選人承擔責任當然是可能的，但要阻止政客和政治勢力則要困難得多。 由於多種原因，將自己固定在臀部可能是互惠互利的。 因此，競選司法職位的個人有責任確保不跨越道德底線。 不幸的是，在某些情況下，這類似於要求狐狸看守雞舍。
需要明確的是，作者並不完全是憤世嫉俗、懷疑和悲觀的。 我們很幸運，密歇根州的絕大多數法官都堅持本文所讚揚的基本司法理念。 例如，最近對密歇根州最高法院2019-2020年開庭的審查顯示，該法院48個案件中近67%的案件達成了一致意見。 隻有 33% 的決定存在分歧，而在這些分歧決定中，隻有兩項是按照黨派界限做出的。3 對密歇根州最高法院 2021-22 年會議的類似觀察顯示，隻有 13% 的決定是按照黨派界限做出的。4
也許有一些諷刺意味，因為我們的密歇根州最高法院法官是由政黨提名的。 然而，這是一個令人鼓舞的例子，說明法官如何同時
通常是深思熟慮、獨立、體貼、尊重和合作的。 雖然法官擺脫政黨的統治很重要，但政黨理解和尊重司法官員不是他們達到目的的手段也同樣重要。
現在也可能是重新審查我們任命和提名密歇根州最高法院法官的方法的適當時機。 如果要完成有意義的改革，就必須從高層開始。 目前的程序已經變得極其政治化，與任命或提名真正獨立的司法機構背道而馳。 無黨派候選人實際上被迫選擇一方。 從很多方麵來看，這個過程似乎很尷尬、排他性和不誠實。
也許現在是時候考慮成立一個兩黨篩選委員會了，該委員會將充當尋求任命者或最終出現在選票上的黨派提名人的看門人（如果當前的提名程序保持不變）。 委員會可以設定資格、經驗和道德操守的門檻水平，作為考慮的先決條件。 雖然未能滿足既定和商定標準的候選人將沒有資格獲得任命或提名，但他們當然可以自由競選。 對現有程序進行一係列合理的改革將確保隻有合格的候選人最終才會被考慮任命或提名。 這將是朝著司法機構保持真正獨立和高素質的正確方向邁出的一步。
我並不是想暗示不合格的候選人已經借助政客的翅膀登上了我們法院的高層，但通過適當的改革來減少這種可能性，並合乎邏輯地將這些改革延伸到初審法院，這肯定是有意義的。 有理由相信，一些司法候選人通過迎合現有權力而獲得了職位（或至少增加了他們的機會），這是不幸的。 金錢列車往往伴隨著政治支持，如果沒有足夠的財政資源，發起一場嚴肅的競選活動變得越來越困難。 對於一些人來說，金錢的誘惑迫使他們試圖把自己的馬拴在政治馬車上。 希望通過額外的培訓和教育，他們很快就會意識到，成為一名法官的使命遠比遵守政治議程、讓支持者滿意以及獲得或保留司法職位更重要。
總之，在這個動蕩的政治時代保持警惕非常重要。 司法機構需要在我們周圍的政治海洋中保持堅定和堅定。 通過保持獨立，我們可以成功地在錫拉和卡律布狄斯之間航行。 盡管存在誘惑，法官和司法候選人也不能讓自己陷入政治泥潭。 謹此提出，如果司法部門變得像政府其他兩個部門一樣政治化，我們的整個製衡體係就會陷入危險。 我們需要保護政府的基礎，並最大限度地讓司法部門擺脫黨派政治。 對司法獨立的持續攻擊正在緩慢但肯定地損害著該機構的圍牆。 也許是時候夯實基礎了。
“道德視角”是一個定期專欄，提供起草者關於《密歇根職業行為規則》應用的意見。 這不是法律建議。 如需撰寫文章，請聯係 SBM Ethics，電子郵件地址：ethics@michbar.org。
尾注
1. 提名露絲·巴德·金斯伯格 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) 擔任美國最高法院副法官：美國參議院司法委員會聽證會，第 103rd Cong，52 (1993)，可參見 [https://perma. cc/3E3B-CLV2]（網站於 2022 年 8 月 16 日訪問）。
2. 關於提名小約翰·羅伯茨 (John G. Roberts, Jr.) 擔任美國首席大法官的確認聽證會：美國參議院司法委員會聽證會，第 109 屆國會，第 55-56 頁 (2005)，可查閱 [ https://perma. cc/3UXA-7J4Z]（網站於 2022 年 8 月 16 日訪問）。
3. 在上一屆的 48 起案件中，最高法院兩次因黨派界限劃分，MIRS（2021 年 1 月 9 日）。
4. MSC 本任期內黨派分裂 13%，MIRS（2022 年 7 月 29 日）。
Pernicious politics: It's time to bench Partisan politics from the bench
by Hon. Christopher S. Ninomiya | Michigan Bar Journal Sept 2022
The judicial branch is once again in danger of bending and breaking. Political parties have adopted strategies that involve trying to weaponize the judiciary, and some would suggest that those strategies are working. It is not being done covertly or on the sly. It is open and obvious and even becoming regular fodder during campaign speeches. This is not a novel approach, nor is it a new problem. Various efforts and battles to control the judiciary have been waged for centuries.
As the finishing touches were being placed on this column, a proposal to impose term limits on the justices of the United States Supreme Court was pending in Congress. This is in addition to other proposals under consideration to increase the number of justices and other attempts to create more “balance” on the high court.
This author respectfully submits that the judiciary should remain fiercely independent and apolitical, particularly when the country seems sharply divided down political fault lines and our democracy is feeling tremors in its very foundation. It is time for the judiciary to reassert its independence and maintain its integrity.
As a sitting judge, I am not naïve nor arrogant enough to suggest that judges and judicial candidates are above the traditional political fray. All elected officials must engage in the process to at least some degree. But as extreme and divisive as our national politics have become, history has apparently taught us nothing. As judges, we are certainly not better or more important than anyone else, and we are by no means superior to the two other branches of government. But we are different from the other two branches in an increasingly important aspect. With a few notable exceptions and the caveat and acknowledgement that politics has always played at least some part in the judicial branch, we have been traditionally and historically non-partisan in carrying out our constitutional responsibilities. At a minimum, it is what good jurists have always striven for despite political parties vying for power in the hopes that they will be able to put their stamp on history by appointing judges that presumably share their political views. The judicial confirmation process itself has become a charade, forcing potential judicial appointees to tie themselves in knots in an effort to avoid providing any semblance of an answer to pointed questions. But as the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out, “[A] judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”1
On state and local levels, judicial positions have similarly been politicized. The Judicial Tenure Commission is regularly confronted with questions as to whether judges or judicial candidates have crossed ethical boundaries by attending political functions, endorsing political candidates, or engaging in overtly political conduct while seeking judicial office. Each election cycle, the conduct seems bolder and more egregious, which leads one to believe that the distinction and proud heritage of the judiciary is being eroded by wave after wave of political gamesmanship. As we have all witnessed, it is not uncommon for judges to be publicly criticized by political figures if a particular ruling does not go their way. Some politicians and commentators even presume that a “conservative” or “liberal” judge will rule in their favor based on the judge’s presumptive party affiliation or judicial philosophy. Sadly, they have frequently lost sight of the individual functions and responsibilities of our three branches of government. The lines should not and must not be blurred.
It has become clear that some politicians view the judiciary simply as a means to support their political agendas. However, instead of being pawns in a political game, the judiciary needs to diligently maintain its independence. Judges are guided and bound by the Constitution and established canons, laws, and precedent. They are not beholden to the powers that appointed them or helped them attain office. Nowhere in the judicial oath is it mentioned that we swear to uphold the agenda of the political party that nominates or supports us. We should cast aside with aspersions anyone trying to be a judicial Geppetto. Furthermore, judges or judicial candidates wanting to wrap themselves in a cloak of a political party to gain office or march in lockstep with a political party’s agenda regardless of the law are committing a tremendous injustice with ramifications that affect the integrity of the entire judiciary. These are quintessential leaves that need to be promptly and vigorously shaken from the judicial branch.
Instead, learned judges should carefully weigh facts and evidence and evenly, fairly, and objectively apply the law. Case outcomes are ideally dictated by the careful consideration and adherence to this procedural protocol. There is always room for respectful debate and countless variations of judicial philosophies. But the crux of a healthy and independent judiciary harkens back to the Constitution — it is a judge’s guiding light and as stable as the Rock of Gibraltar. Regardless of whether an outcome personally appeals to a judge or to the public, and regardless of whether it aligns with our personal or political beliefs, our oath and our duty is to uphold the Constitution and our laws. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has recognized this very principle: “Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.”2
The Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct is specific and instructive when it comes to the topic of judges, independence, and political activity. In fact, Judicial Canon 1 is entitled, “A Judge should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.” It is unlikely a mere coincidence that the drafters of the judicial canons reference the importance of judicial independence right out of the gate. Canon 1 goes on to state that “an independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. A judge should always be aware that the judicial system is for the benefit of the litigant and the public, not the judiciary.”
Judicial Canon 2(F) states that “a judge should not allow activity as a member of an organization to cast doubt on the judge’s ability to perform the function of the office in a manner consistent with the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, the laws of this state, and the Michigan and United States Constitutions.” It is also made clear in Judicial Canon 5 that several of the regulatory canons apply to judicial candidates as well as current judges. They are equally subject to discipline for judicial campaign misconduct.
Judicial Canon 3(A)(1) goes on to say that “a judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.” Judicial Canon 7 further discusses political activity by judges and judicial candidates. Judicial Canon 7(A)(1) indicates that “a judge or candidate for judicial office should not: (a) hold any office in a political party; (b) make speeches on behalf of a political party or nonjudicial candidate or publicly endorse a candidate for nonjudicial office.” Judicial Canon 7(A)(2) allows for only limited political activity, including “(a) attend[ing] political gatherings; (b) speak[ing] to such gatherings on the judge’s own behalf or on behalf of other judicial candidates; and (c) contribut[ing] to a political party.”
It is clear that the drafters of the Michigan judicial canons wanted to ensure that judges and judicial candidates were not engaging in overtly partisan politics. But trying to limit political operatives is a different type of challenge that roughly equates to pouring sand into a colander. One frequent concern is a political party or partisan candidate campaigning on behalf of a judge, including them on partisan literature, or otherwise claiming or alluding to the judge or candidate as a member of their tribe. While it is certainly possible to hold judges and judicial candidates accountable, it is much more difficult keeping the politicians and political forces at bay. For a variety of reasons, it may be mutually beneficial to attach themselves at the hip. It is therefore incumbent on those individuals running for judicial office to ensure that the ethical line is not crossed. Unfortunately, in some instances, this is akin to asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
To be clear, this author is not entirely cynical, skeptical, and pessimistic. We are fortunate to have a significant majority of Michigan judges who adhere to the basic judicial philosophy that is lauded by this article. For example, a recent examination of the 2019-2020 session of the Michigan Supreme Court showed that nearly 67% of the court’s 48 cases resulted in unanimous opinions. Only 33% of the decisions were split and of those split decisions, only two were decided along party lines.3 A similar look at the Michigan Supreme Court 2021-22 session showed that just 13% of decisions fell upon party lines.4
Perhaps there is some irony at play, as our Michigan Supreme Court judges are nominated by political parties. However, this is an encouraging example of how judges can simultaneously be thoughtful, independent, considerate, respectful, and collegial. And while it is important for judges to break free from the reigns of a political party, it is equally important for political parties to understand and respect that judicial officers are not their means to an end.
It may also be an appropriate time to reexamine the methods by which we appoint and nominate our Michigan Supreme Court justices. If meaningful reform is to be accomplished, it makes sense to start at the top. The current process has become extremely political and is antithetical to a truly independent judiciary being appointed or nominated. Nonpartisan candidates are effectively forced to choose a side. The process seems awkward, exclusive, and disingenuous in many respects.
Perhaps it is time to consider a bipartisan screening commission that serves as a gatekeeper for those seeking appointment or to those party nominees that ultimately appear on the ballot if the current nomination process is left intact. A threshold level of qualifications, experience, and ethical integrity could be established by the commission as a prerequisite for consideration. And while candidates who failed to meet the developed and agreed-upon criteria would not be eligible for appointment or nomination, they would, of course, remain free to run for election. A reasonable set of reforms to the existing process would ensure that only well-qualified candidates are ultimately considered for appointment or nomination. This would be a step in the right direction toward a judiciary that remains truly independent and highly qualified.
I am not trying to insinuate that unqualified candidates have ascended to the upper echelons of our courts on the wings of politicians, but it would certainly make sense to reduce this possibility with appropriate reforms and logically extend those reforms to the trial courts. It is reasonable to believe that some judicial candidates have obtained office (or at least increased their chances) by pandering to the powers that be, and that is unfortunate. The money train often accompanies political endorsements, and it is increasingly difficult to mount a serious campaign without sufficient financial resources. And for some, the lure of the lucre compels them to try and hitch their horse to a political wagon. Hopefully with additional training and education, they will soon realize that the calling of being a judge involves something far greater than adhering to a political agenda, keeping supporters satisfied, and obtaining or retaining judicial office.
In conclusion, it is important to remain vigilant in these turbulent political times. The judiciary needs to be solid and steadfast in the political seas that swirl around us. By remaining independent, we can successfully navigate a course between the Scylla and Charybdis. And despite the temptations, judges and judicial candidates cannot allow themselves to be drawn into the political morass. It is respectfully submitted that if the judicial branch becomes as political as the other two branches of government, our entire system of checks and balances is in peril. We need to protect the foundation of government and remove the judicial branch from partisan politics to the greatest extent possible. The constant attacks upon judicial independence are slowly, but surely, damaging the walls of the institution. Perhaps it is time to shore up the foundation.
“Ethical Perspective” is a regular column providing the drafter’s opinion regarding the application of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. It is not legal advice. To contribute an article, please contact SBM Ethics at ethics@michbar.org.
ENDNOTES
1. Nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 103rd Cong, 52 (1993), available at [https://perma.cc/3E3B-CLV2] (website accessed August 16, 2022).
2. Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. to be Chief Justice of the United States: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 109th Congress, pp 55-56 (2005), available at [https://perma. cc/3UXA-7J4Z] (website accessed August 16, 2022).
3. Out of 48 Cases Last Term, Supreme Court Divided on Party Lines Twice, MIRS (January 9, 2021).
4. MSC Splits Along Party Lines 13% This Term, MIRS (July 29, 2022).
