Holy cow! I just saw this story about the $250 campaign contribution Michael Schiavo's attorney (actually his law firm) made to the re-election campaign of Judge Greer, "as did court-appointed attorneys representing the husband's interest, Pacarek & Herman and Richard Pearse."
The story states, "The Empire Journal notes that in Florida, a judge is not required to recuse himself if he receives a contribution from an attorney in a case over which he presides. Nevertheless, a contribution can establish the appearance of impropriety, and the state's code of judicial conduct requires a judge to remove himself in such a case. "
The story also mentions that the campaign contribution came on a day when it was the only contrubution, so it was not part of a fund-raising program. Which makes me question whether it's ethical for a judge's re-election campaign to target law firms. I would think that would open up a judge to having to recuse himself endlessly, because lawyers who contributed to his campaign would keep coming before him.
This seems so wrong!
And so does this. For yet another time, U.S. District Judge James Whittemore refused to reinsert the feeding tube while he considers a lawsuit filed by Terri's parents about the removal of the feeding tube.
Why is life such a difficult concept for these judges? Why, when it's a helpless, disabled woman, can't they seem to give her a stay of execution, when other judges give stays of execution to convicted murderers mere hours before they're scheduled to die (link here)?
I don't get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment