tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post1529733670687324071..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Virginia Supreme Court to Hear Falls Church PetitionA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-80920599778399714702012-09-26T20:32:56.482-07:002012-09-26T20:32:56.482-07:00Yes, October 16 is stacking up as an important dat...Yes, October 16 is stacking up as an important date. We here in the (real) Diocese of Fort Worth are in anticipation as the Texas hearing precedes the diocesan convention by just a few weeks.<br /><br />Daniel (aka Fisherman)The Fishermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01938754483703127895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-8304345860525922662012-09-26T12:27:51.550-07:002012-09-26T12:27:51.550-07:00Speaking specifically of Virginia, judicial disqua...Speaking specifically of Virginia, judicial disqualification in the Commonwealth is governed by the Canons of Judicial Conduct promulgated by Virginia's Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission (JIRC), available at <a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us/agencies/jirc/canons_112398.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.courts.state.va.us/agencies/jirc/canons_112398.html</a>.<br /><br />Specifically, Canons 3E and 3F govern disqualification and the remittal (i.e., waiver) of disqualification.<br /><br />In practice, this has led to the standard procedure being exactly what happened in the first round before the Supreme Court of Virginia: some of the justices identified the appeal as "a proceeding in which [each] judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned" under Canon 3E(1) and asked the parties whether to waive disqualification pursuant to 3F. When at least one of the parties declined to waive disqualification, each judge recused himself.<br /><br />Note that being a practicing Episcopalian isn't (by a long shot) the only potential basis upon which a justice might be concerned that his or her impartiality might be questioned. It could be former membership in an Episcopal parish, current or former membership in a similarly situated denomination, or something entirely unrelated to the justice's religious affiliations, such as an indirect economic interest in the outcome of the litigation through a spouse or other family member.Jeff Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04662228150180705795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-7656702747954116952012-09-25T20:32:19.242-07:002012-09-25T20:32:19.242-07:00That is a complicated question, Fradgan. The stand...That is a complicated question, Fradgan. The standard which applies frequently (I do not know specifically about Virginia), and with which I am most familiar, says that judges should recuse themselves in any case in which their participation could create the "appearance of impropriety." <br /><br />This standard is by no means uniform. For example, in the appeal by Christ Church in Savannah to the Georgia Supreme Court, a couple of justices recused themselves on account of their religious affiliations (see <a href="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/11/analyzing-georgia-decisions-i.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> for details), but the justice who <i>authored the majority opinion</i> did not see fit to recuse himself, even though he was a member of one of the largest Episcopal congregations in the State.<br /><br />And guess what -- if you challenge a sitting judge or justice under these standards, it is the judge / justice himself who makes the first determination as to whether an "appearance of impropriety" is involved. After that, you have to take an appeal to an appropriate appellate court -- whose justices regularly have lunch with the judge whose impartiality you are challenging, and in my experience, they <i>always</i> give that judge the benefit of the doubt, despite what "appearances" could say.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-23195427645574027622012-09-25T20:18:32.119-07:002012-09-25T20:18:32.119-07:00Curmudgeon,
Was it mandatory for Episcopalian jus...Curmudgeon,<br /><br />Was it mandatory for Episcopalian justices to recuse themselves on the basis of their religion?Fradganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18419215184575757378noreply@blogger.com