|
Critiques of the Judiciary
|
|
The Myth of Judicial Impartiality
Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Pascal L. Calogero, Jr., in his April 8, 2008 address to the State Legislature, reassured lawmakers and the public: "The ranks of Louisiana judges are filled, for the most part, with hard-working , competent, ethical, honest jurists who take their constitutional responsibilities very seriously, as do you Legislators. They are dedicated public servants who routinely act without selfish motives." [1] These and other assertions of judicial integrity that are repeatedly employed to indoctrinate citizens are contradicted by factual realities substantiated through formal, objective methods of quantitation. One such analysis is the 2008 report of Palmer and Levendis which clearly demonstrates that Justice Calogero was significantly influenced, as were other judges, by financial contributions that were made to his election campaigns [2]. Justice Calogero has dismissed the Palmer-Levendis study as "baseless." [3].
The data in Table 3 permit us to conclude that the effect of being the higher net contributor has a significant effect on the votes cast by Justices Calogero, Weimer, and Kimball. In cases where the defendant happened to be the net contributor (i.e., the defendant's contribution was larger than the plaintiff's or the plaintiff made no donation at all), Justice Calogero ruled in favor of the defendant's position 70% of the time. Justice Weimer ruled for the defendant's position 86% of the time, and Justice Kimball did so 66% of the time. On the other hand, in cases where the plaintiff was the net contributor (i.e., where the plaintiff made a larger donation than the defendant), the voting pattern shifted markedly. Justice Calogero favored the plaintiff's position 73% of the time. Justice Weimer ruled in favor of the plaintiff's position 63% of the time, and Justice Kimball did the same 66% of the time. This high correlation in favor of the net contributor indicates that the higher the donation, the more favorable the treatment. It is unlikely that this has anything to do with philosophical orientation, because the judicial voting pattern of each justice shifts from being
plaintiff-oriented todefendant-oriented , depending upon which side has made the larger donation. Furthermore, this stands in evident contrast to the voting patterns of these same justices when no contributor is before them. The comparison between theirno-contributor voting andnet-contributor voting in favor of defendants shows a significant variation in voting behavior—a 24% differential for Justice Calogero, a 12% differential for Justice Kimball, and a 46% differential for Justice Weimer. The comparison between their defendantnet-contributor and plaintiffnet-contributor voting records shows more extreme variation: a 43% swing by Justice Calogero, a 32% swing by Justice Kimball, and a 49% swing by Justice Weimer.
Chief Justice, Louisiana Supreme Court
February 6, 2008
References
- Louisiana Supreme Court, "State of the Judiciary Address to the Joint Session of the House and Senate Louisiana Legislature by Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana," 2008 Press Releases, April 8, 2008, http://www.lasc.org/press_room/press_releases/2008/2008-07.asp, accessed 04/20/08.
- Vernon V. Palmer and John Levendis, "The Louisiana Supreme Court in Question: An Empirical and Statistical Study of the Effects of Campaign Money on the Judicial Function," Tulane Law Review, Vol. 82, Issue 4, 1291-1314 (2008).
- Louisiana Supreme Court, "Statement of Chief Justice Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., Louisiana Supreme Court," 2008 Press Releases, June 12, 2008, http://www.lasc.org/press_room/press_releases/2008/ Statement_of_Chief_Justice_Calogero_June_12_2008.pdf (delete space), accessed 07/18/08. Note that Calogero's press release also contains links to two recent critiques that question the methods and conclusions reached by Palmer and Levendis.
- Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., "Justice questions campaign contribution study," The Times-Picayune, February 6, 2008, Metro,
p. 6 .
- Susan Finch, "Angry chief justice disputes study of court; Campaign donor bias charge invalid, he says," The Times-Picayune, July 11, 2008, Metro,
p. 8 .
ELECT OR APPOINT, PART 1 FIXING THE JUDICIARYTILTING THE SCALES NO JUSTICE HERE
Censure Judge Berrigan?
Web site created November, 1998 This section last modified July, 2008
| Home | Site Map | Background | About Bernofsky | Lawsuits | Case Calendar |
| Judicial Misconduct | Judicial Reform | Contact | Interviews | Disclaimer |
This Web site is not associated with Tulane University or its affiliates
© 1998-2008 Carl Bernofsky - All rights reserved
