风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
有害的政治：是时候让党派政治坐冷板凳了
Hon. 克里斯托弗·S·二宫 | 密歇根律师杂志 2022 年 9 月
司法部门再次面临崩溃的危险。 政党已经采取了试图将司法武器化的战略，有些人认为这些战略正在发挥作用。 这不是秘密或偷偷地进行的。 它是公开的、显而易见的，甚至成为竞选演讲中的常规素材。 这不是一个新方法，也不是一个新问题。 几个世纪以来，人们一直在进行各种控制司法的努力和斗争。
随着本专栏的收尾工作正在进行，一项对美国最高法院法官实行任期限制的提案正在国会等待审议。 除此之外，还有其他正在考虑的增加法官人数的提案以及其他在高等法院创造更多“平衡”的尝试。
作者恭敬地提出，司法机构应该保持高度独立和非政治性，特别是当这个国家似乎在政治断层线上严重分裂并且我们的民主制度的根基感到颤抖时。 现在是司法机构重申其独立性并保持其完整性的时候了。
作为一名现任法官，我并没有天真或傲慢地认为法官和司法候选人凌驾于传统的政治纷争之上。 所有当选官员都必须至少在某种程度上参与这一过程。 尽管我们的国家政治已经变得极端和分裂，但历史显然没有给我们任何教训。 作为法官，我们当然并不比其他任何人更好或更重要，我们也绝不优于其他两个政府部门。 但我们与其他两个分支的不同之处在于一个日益重要的方面。 除了一些值得注意的例外以及政治在司法部门中至少始终发挥着一定作用的警告和承认之外，我们在履行宪法职责时传统上和历史上一直是无党派的。 至少，这是优秀法学家一直在努力追求的目标，尽管各政党争夺权力，希望能够通过任命与他们政治观点相同的法官来在历史上留下自己的印记。 司法确认程序本身已成为一场猜谜游戏，迫使潜在的司法任命者陷入困境，以避免对尖锐的问题提供任何表面上的答案。 但正如已故美国最高法院大法官露丝·巴德·金斯伯格（Ruth Bader Ginsburg）指出的那样，“宣誓公正裁决的法官不能提供任何预测、任何暗示，因为这不仅会表现出对特定案件细节的漠视，还会表现出蔑视”。 整个司法程序。”1
在州和地方层面，司法职位也同样被政治化。 司法任期委员会经常面临法官或司法候选人是否通过参加政治活动、支持政治候选人或在寻求司法职位时参与公开的政治行为而跨越道德界限的问题。 每个选举周期，这种行为似乎都更加大胆、更加令人震惊，这让人们相信，司法部门的卓越地位和引以为豪的传统正在被一波又一波的政治游戏所侵蚀。 正如我们都目睹的那样，如果某项裁决不符合法官的意愿，法官受到政治人物公开批评的情况并不少见。 一些政客和评论员甚至认为“保守派”或“自由派”法官会根据法官的推定党派背景或司法理念做出对他们有利的裁决。 可悲的是，他们常常忽视我们三个政府部门各自的职能和责任。 界限不应该也不应该模糊。
很明显，一些政客将司法部门仅仅视为支持其政治议程的手段。 然而，司法机关不应成为政治游戏中的棋子，而需要努力保持其独立性。 法官受宪法、既定准则、法律和先例的指导和约束。 他们不依赖于任命他们或帮助他们获得职位的权力。 司法宣誓中没有提到我们宣誓维护提名或支持我们的政党的议程。 我们应该诽谤任何试图成为司法杰佩托的人。 此外，法官或司法候选人想要披着政党的外衣上台，或者不顾法律地追随政党的议程，这是一种巨大的不公正行为，其后果会影响整个司法机构的廉正。 这些是典型的叶子，
需要迅速而有力地将其从司法部门中撤出。
相反，学识渊博的法官应该仔细权衡事实和证据，平等、公正、客观地适用法律。 理想情况下，案件结果是由仔细考虑和遵守该程序协议决定的。 总是有尊重的辩论和司法哲学的无数变化的空间。 但健康、独立的司法机构的关键可以追溯到宪法——它是法官的指路明灯，并且像直布罗陀岩石一样稳定。 无论结果是否对法官个人或公众有吸引力，也无论它是否符合我们的个人或政治信仰，我们的誓言和责任都是维护宪法和法律。 美国最高法院首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）已经认识到这一原则：“法官必须谦虚地认识到，他们是在先例体系中运作的，而该先例体系是由同样努力履行司法誓言的其他法官塑造的。”2
在涉及法官、独立性和政治活动等主题时，《密歇根州司法行为守则》是具体且具有指导意义的。 事实上，《司法法典》第一条的标题是“法官应当维护司法机关的廉正和独立”。 司法准则的起草者一开始就提到了司法独立的重要性，这不可能只是巧合。 教规 1 继续指出，“独立和光荣的司法机构对于我们社会的正义是不可或缺的。 法官应参与建立、维持和执行高标准的行为，并亲自遵守，以维护司法机关的廉正和独立。 法官应该始终意识到，司法系统是为了当事人和公众的利益，而不是司法部门。”
司法规范 2(F) 规定，“法官不应允许作为组织成员的活动对法官以符合《密歇根州司法行为准则》、美国法律的方式履行职责的能力产生怀疑。 这个州，以及密歇根州和美国宪法。” 《司法规范 5》还明确指出，一些监管规范适用于司法候选人以及现任法官。 他们同样会因司法竞选不当行为而受到纪律处分。
《司法法典》第 3(A)(1) 条接着指出：“法官应当忠实于法律并保持专业能力。 法官不应受到党派利益、公众呼声或对批评的恐惧的影响。” 司法规范 7 进一步讨论了法官和司法候选人的政治活动。 《司法法典》第 7(A)(1) 条规定，“法官或司法职位候选人不得： (a) 在政党中担任任何职务； (b) 代表政党或非司法候选人发表演讲，或公开支持非司法职位的候选人。” 司法准则 7(A)(2) 仅允许有限的政治活动，包括“(a) 参加政治集会； (b) 代表法官本人或代表其他司法候选人在此类集会上发言； (c) 为政党做出贡献。”
显然，密歇根州司法准则的起草者希望确保法官和司法候选人不参与公开的党派政治。 但试图限制政治人物是一种不同类型的挑战，大致相当于将沙子倒入漏勺中。 一个常见的问题是政党或党派候选人代表法官竞选，包括在党派文献中，或以其他方式声称或暗示法官或候选人是其部落的成员。 虽然让法官和司法候选人承担责任当然是可能的，但要阻止政客和政治势力则要困难得多。 由于多种原因，将自己固定在臀部可能是互惠互利的。 因此，竞选司法职位的个人有责任确保不跨越道德底线。 不幸的是，在某些情况下，这类似于要求狐狸看守鸡舍。
需要明确的是，作者并不完全是愤世嫉俗、怀疑和悲观的。 我们很幸运，密歇根州的绝大多数法官都坚持本文所赞扬的基本司法理念。 例如，最近对密歇根州最高法院2019-2020年开庭的审查显示，该法院48个案件中近67%的案件达成了一致意见。 只有 33% 的决定存在分歧，而在这些分歧决定中，只有两项是按照党派界限做出的。3 对密歇根州最高法院 2021-22 年会议的类似观察显示，只有 13% 的决定是按照党派界限做出的。4
也许有一些讽刺意味，因为我们的密歇根州最高法院法官是由政党提名的。 然而，这是一个令人鼓舞的例子，说明法官如何同时
通常是深思熟虑、独立、体贴、尊重和合作的。 虽然法官摆脱政党的统治很重要，但政党理解和尊重司法官员不是他们达到目的的手段也同样重要。
现在也可能是重新审查我们任命和提名密歇根州最高法院法官的方法的适当时机。 如果要完成有意义的改革，就必须从高层开始。 目前的程序已经变得极其政治化，与任命或提名真正独立的司法机构背道而驰。 无党派候选人实际上被迫选择一方。 从很多方面来看，这个过程似乎很尴尬、排他性和不诚实。
也许现在是时候考虑成立一个两党筛选委员会了，该委员会将充当寻求任命者或最终出现在选票上的党派提名人的看门人（如果当前的提名程序保持不变）。 委员会可以设定资格、经验和道德操守的门槛水平，作为考虑的先决条件。 虽然未能满足既定和商定标准的候选人将没有资格获得任命或提名，但他们当然可以自由竞选。 对现有程序进行一系列合理的改革将确保只有合格的候选人最终才会被考虑任命或提名。 这将是朝着司法机构保持真正独立和高素质的正确方向迈出的一步。
我并不是想暗示不合格的候选人已经借助政客的翅膀登上了我们法院的高层，但通过适当的改革来减少这种可能性，并合乎逻辑地将这些改革延伸到初审法院，这肯定是有意义的。 有理由相信，一些司法候选人通过迎合现有权力而获得了职位（或至少增加了他们的机会），这是不幸的。 金钱列车往往伴随着政治支持，如果没有足够的财政资源，发起一场严肃的竞选活动变得越来越困难。 对于一些人来说，金钱的诱惑迫使他们试图把自己的马拴在政治马车上。 希望通过额外的培训和教育，他们很快就会意识到，成为一名法官的使命远比遵守政治议程、让支持者满意以及获得或保留司法职位更重要。
总之，在这个动荡的政治时代保持警惕非常重要。 司法机构需要在我们周围的政治海洋中保持坚定和坚定。 通过保持独立，我们可以成功地在锡拉和卡律布狄斯之间航行。 尽管存在诱惑，法官和司法候选人也不能让自己陷入政治泥潭。 谨此提出，如果司法部门变得像政府其他两个部门一样政治化，我们的整个制衡体系就会陷入危险。 我们需要保护政府的基础，并最大限度地让司法部门摆脱党派政治。 对司法独立的持续攻击正在缓慢但肯定地损害着该机构的围墙。 也许是时候夯实基础了。
“道德视角”是一个定期专栏，提供起草者关于《密歇根职业行为规则》应用的意见。 这不是法律建议。 如需撰写文章，请联系 SBM Ethics，电子邮件地址：ethics@michbar.org。
尾注
1. 提名露丝·巴德·金斯伯格 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) 担任美国最高法院副法官：美国参议院司法委员会听证会，第 103rd Cong，52 (1993)，可参见 [https://perma. cc/3E3B-CLV2]（网站于 2022 年 8 月 16 日访问）。
2. 关于提名小约翰·罗伯茨 (John G. Roberts, Jr.) 担任美国首席大法官的确认听证会：美国参议院司法委员会听证会，第 109 届国会，第 55-56 页 (2005)，可查阅 [ https://perma. cc/3UXA-7J4Z]（网站于 2022 年 8 月 16 日访问）。
3. 在上一届的 48 起案件中，最高法院两次因党派界限划分，MIRS（2021 年 1 月 9 日）。
4. MSC 本任期内党派分裂 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).
