|
Some things just cry out for a "bright-line rule,"
one that makes crystal clear what's acceptable and what's
not. One such thing is judges' overnight trips to posh locales
for seminars paid for by private interests.
Where should Congress draw the bright line? If a judge or
the government pays, it's fine. If a private party picks up
the tab, it's not. That unambiguous rule would avoid even
the appearance of impropriety.
Bills to put such a rule in place have bumped around Congress
for years. The current Senate version would exempt seminars
sponsored by bar associations or universities that last a
day or less. But to attend events for which private subsidies
were unacceptable, judges could dip into a $2-million public
fund for continuing education - and get pay raises.
The bill's chief foes? Judges. Commenting on a similar bill
in 2001, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said it would discourage
an informed judiciary and compromise judges' unfettered access
to ideas. Existing rules are enough, he said. Those rules
bar judges from taking gifts from parties who may appear before
them, require judges to recuse themselves if their impartiality
might reasonably be questioned, and to disclose, as gifts,
seminars paid for by private interests.
Those disclosures were reviewed by the Community Rights Council,
a not-for-profit law firm that has called for the funding
ban. It found that 1,030 federal judges took 5,800 privately-funded
trips from 1992 to 1998, and concluded that the independence
of some judges was compromised as a result.
Senate reformers don't go that far, decrying only the appearance
of impropriety. Congress should fine-tune any new rules so
that learning opportunities are not unduly limited. But it
should be clear that judges may not let private interests
pay. It just doesn't look good.
|
