Armchair Pundits

Necessary Censure Or Free Speech?

During the debacle of the Harriet Miers SCOTUS nomination, Texas Supreme Court Justice, Nathan Hecht, was sought out by MSM to shed some light on Ms. Mier's character and quality. Now he is being admonished by Texas' State Commission on Judicial Conduct for his comments.

The key issue concerns whether or not Justice Hecht utilized his office and reputation as a platform for endorsing Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, which is forbidden under the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct .

Justice Hecht is appealing the decision and his attorney, Charles "Chip" Babcock, believes the Justice's free speech rights have been called into question.

Key graph: "So it is permissible and a constitutional right that you can announce your position on abortion, the war in Iraq or anything else, but you can't announce your position on whether Harriet Miers would make a good justice on the United States Supreme Court?" Babcock asks. "Yeah, I disagree with that."

Another consideration involves the actual constitution of an endorsement. At what point is a man or woman's opinion considered an endorsement? Those who know me well, are aware of my affinity for cheddar filled brats, but such food is clearly contraindicated for those battling high cholesterol or a heart condition. Does my opinion that this is the best brat in the world, constitue an endorsement to eat said brat by the aforementioned persons?

Perhaps, that is sloppy thinking, seeing as I'm not an attorney, but a consideration none the less.
Sounds like a politically motivated action to me.

posted by Grisby @ 10:08 AM