ruling upon the alleged unconstitutionality of commingling of investigative, adjudicative and prosecutorial functions of Board and General Counsel
How later courts described this case
- ruling upon the alleged unconstitutionality of commingling of investigative, adjudicative and prosecutorial functions of Board and General Counsel
- receipt of cash for favorable [J-59 A-2013] - 79 adjudication prohibited by canons of judicial conduct; reject claim that Canon 1 of Code of Judicial Conduct was not violated because language was aspirational and vague, and did not specifically address circumstances at issue: “one who asserts his or her competency to hold judicial office [should not] have difficulty in understanding concepts such as ‘integrity,’ ‘independence’ and ‘impartiality’”
- receipt of cash for favorable adjudication prohibited by canons of judicial conduct; reject claim that Canon 1 of Code of Judicial Conduct was not violated because language was aspirational and vague, and did not specifically address circumstances at issue: “one who asserts his or her competency to hold judicial office [should not] have difficulty in understanding concepts such as ‘integrity,’ ‘independence’ and ‘impartiality’ ”
- in disciplinary context, “possible [sanction] should assist in ameliorating the injury caused by the dereliction” of jurist
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I join with the Majority in concluding that the Respondent Judges must forfeit their offices. However, I write separately to caution the Board that its role in a quasi-judicial setting is not to condemn the system of selecting our judiciary. This is a political question best left to the political arena.
To suggest that the elective process is flawed and partially to blame for the events leading up to today’s conclusion, or that the political climate tended to blight the moral sensitivities of these Respondents, is to insult the integrity of every honest judge who has ever been the product of this selective process and who was not touched by the so-called “flaws” or “political climate.”
The Respondents reach the end of their respective judicial careers today because they forgot, or never learned, that in the human experience money has never been used in exchanging gifts with public officials occupying positions of *457 public trust. From the time of Justinian The Great, the receipt of monetary gifts by Judges has been cause for immediate forfeiture "of office. The manner of selecting a judge must never be interposed as an excuse for selling one’s public office.