A Judicial Lapse, But Not Serious?
Judge Juan Merchan contributed to Pres. Biden's 2020 campaign, but a NY judicial panel found this was not serious enough to bar Merchan from presiding over Pres. Trump's criminal hush money trial.
How big must an ethical lapse be to be taken seriously?
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct reportedly found that Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over Pres. Trump’s hush money trial, committed a prior ethical lapse when he contributed to then Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s campaign to unseat incumbent GOP President Donald J. Trump in 2020.
Justice Merchan’s contribution was trivial but enough to raise questions about whether he should be presiding over Trump’s case, one of the most political trials in U.S. history.
Can a judge be a little impartial? That’s like asking if a woman can be a little pregnant.
The Federal Election Commission reported in 2020 that Judge Merchan contributed $35 to the Democratic group ActBlue, which included $15 earmarked for Biden for President and $10 each to Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans.
Reuters reports that it was told by the NY Office of Court Administration last week that “Justice Merchan said the complaint, from more than a year ago, was dismissed in July with a caution.” A letter of caution is issued by the commission “upon a finding that the judge’s misconduct is established.” It is the least severe form of disciplinary action for misconduct.
The NY judicial commission’s inconsequential “caution” of Judge Merchan raises questions about the advisability of allowing judges to police themselves, behind closed doors, without any input from the public that pays their salaries.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to INJUSTICE AT WORK to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.