Columns
Justices, Unions and the 'Appearance of Evil'
Around the State
Jesse Phillips
Growing up, I took this to mean that in order to maintain our integrity and good standing, we should avoid any association or activity that could reasonably appear to be evil, whether or not it actually is.
For the record, the title of this piece does not suggest that justices or unions are evil. My suggestion is simply that they may be entangled in a conflict of interest that has a very questionable appearance.
Let me explain.
In 2011, Florida’s Legislature passed a law requiring state employees to contribute 3 percent of their salary into their pensions, saving taxpayers $1 billion per year. The unions sued to get this money back. On Sept. 7, the Florida Supreme Court heard arguments. The justices are currently deliberating whether they should overturn the law and award that billion dollars back to the state employees.
Under normal circumstances, this is a fiscally important case; but in this election year, it’s nuclear.
The justices are running for retention. Until recently their primary supporters were members of the legal community. For the past two years there has been no recognized support for the justices outside of the legal community. We have learned, however, that they suddenly have a new ally -- public-sector unions.
Recently, the First Fraternal Order of Police and the Florida Professional Firefighters associations announced their support of Justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince and R. Fred Lewis. Although they’ve adopted anti-political rhetoric, their motive is transparent enough.
Why would the leadership of the police and fire unions take the unprecedented step of backing three Supreme Court justices? Do they have anything to gain by joining their campaigns?
I can’t think of anything they’d gain by backing these three justices except their share of $1 billion.
Think about it: Justices Pariente, Quince and Lewis are deciding whether to direct $1 billion to public employees and unions, some of which are directly supporting their campaigns!
Is this evil? That's for you to decide. Does it have the “appearance of evil”? Yes.
I’m sure the justices insist they will make their billion-dollar decision with absolute objectivity and that the unions’ vital role in their re-election will not cross their minds even once. I’m sure the unions will say that they are just looking out for the justices whose $1 million campaign is being threatened by an evil youth pastor on Facebook.
Behind all of the rhetoric is a nagging question: Is it ethical for a judge to make a ruling in a case when the primary financial beneficiary is also a known supporter of his re-election?
From the unions' perspective, is it ethical to suddenly join the campaign of a judge who is about to decide whether you will receive a share of a $1 billion payout?
I’ve been accused of compromising the court’s independence. Ironic, isn’t it?
If the court is to maintain its integrity and avoid the appearance of evil, Justices Pariente, Quince and Lewis should recuse themselves from this decision. That’s the only way they can avoid the charge of abusing their positions and gaining union support by the potential of a favorable ruling.
Do the right thing, Justices Pariente, Quince and Lewis. Recuse yourself. At the very least, issue a ruling on this case before the election.
Jesse Phillips, Jesse@RestoreJustice2012.com, is president of Restore Justice Inc.
Comments (3)
Perhaps, instead, this should be about non-partisan elections, as the law intended:
CHAPTER 105
NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS
105.011 Definitions.—
(1) As used in this chapter, the term “judicial office” includes the office of:
(a) Justice of the Supreme Court.
(b) Judge of a district court of appeal.
(c) Judge of a circuit court.
(d) County court judge.
(2) A judicial office is a nonpartisan office, and a candidate for election or retention thereto is prohibited from campaigning or qualifying for such an office based on party affiliation.
105.071 Candidates for judicial office; limitations on political activity.—A candidate for judicial office shall not:
(1) Participate in any partisan political party activities, except that such candidate may register to vote as a member of any political party and may vote in any party primary for candidates for nomination of the party in which she or he is registered to vote.
(2) Campaign as a member of any political party.
(3) Publicly represent or advertise herself or himself as a member of any political party.
(4) Endorse any candidate.
(5) Make political speeches other than in the candidate’s own behalf.
(6) Make contributions to political party funds.
(7) Accept contributions from any political party.
(8) Solicit contributions for any political party.
(9) Accept or retain a place on any political party committee.
(10) Make any contribution to any person, group, or organization for its endorsement to judicial office.
(11) Agree to pay all or any part of any advertisement sponsored by any person, group, or organization wherein the candidate may be endorsed for judicial office by any such person, group, or organization.
A candidate for judicial office or retention therein who violates the provisions of this section is liable for a civil fine of up to $1,000 to be determined by the Florida Elections Commission.
105.09 Political activity in behalf of a candidate for judicial office limited.—
(1) No political party or partisan political organization shall endorse, support, or assist any candidate in a campaign for election to judicial office.
(2) Any person who knowingly, in an individual capacity or as an officer of an organization, violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
So, yes, let's now interject partisan religious opposition into this clearly non-partisan retention effort. Let's just let you have your partisan political justice in Florida. After all, that's what this effort is all about. The law, my religious way or the highway, correct?
Pathetic.
Leave a Comment on This Story