Litigation

Impeachment for Texas Judge? NY Times Weighs In

By Charlie Hall

A Feb. 19 New York Times editorial  discusses calls to impeach Texas Judge Sharon Keller, and two sentiments are hard to disagree with.

First, that Keller showed “monumental callousness, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of justice,” by closing her court at 5 p.m. sharp, as lawyers were desperately trying to file an 11th-hour death penalty appeal. No appeal was filed,  and the execution proceeded.

Second, we agree that “impeaching a judge is not a step a legislature should take lightly.”

Often, calls to impeach judges are easily brushed aside, especially when coming from lawmakers who don’t like a specific decision. The case of Judge Keller is less easy. On its face, her decision to lock her doors when a life was at stake appears remarkable. 

But is it impeachable? The goal of impeachment is remove judges who commit crimes-not who exercise bad judgment, even potentially atrocious judgment, in an honest performance of their duties.  That’s why it was such a bad idea when Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace mounted campaigns to oust judges in Ohio and Vermont a few years ago. 

Our fear here is that impeaching Judge Keller could set off a race down a steep and slippery slope, in which lawmakers can start hauling judges into the impeachment docket for supposed administrative failings, when the real goal is to clear the bench of competing philosophies.

Other reviews, less drastic than impeachment, are preferable, and that brings up a final important point in the Times editorial: It seems inexplicable that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct has failed to rule on a complaint against Judge Keller for more than a year. Conduct commissions protect not only the public, but the judiciary itself, by holding judges to account when they deserve it.

Failure to respond to a case of this magnitude is itself an act of “monumental callousness” to the public, and recklessly opens the doors to remedies such as impeachment, when a more appropriate level of redress is not forthcoming.

 Whether or not you agree with its conclusions, the Times’ editorial, “Investigating Judge Keller,” is well worth reading. Gavel Grab welcomes any comments you have on this case. 

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 20, 2009 (boomark / email).