Gavel Grab

A recent Bill Moyers program, “Justice for Sale,” attracted intense interest, including here at Gavel Grab and at www.justiceatstake.org. In an impassioned commentary about Citizens United, Moyers said, “There’s now a crooked sign hanging on every courthouse in America reading ‘Justice for Sale.’”

But a letter from William Weisenberg (in photo), chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, raises an important point. Although escalating spending on court elections has sparked widespread public concern about the appearance of justice, it does not follow that individual judges are in fact  unethical.

Here is Bill’s letter in its entirety:

The statement by Bill Moyers, a veteran journalist, portraying our courthouses as locations where “justice is for sale” is most unfortunate and a statement I strongly disagree with. As Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independences, I view this characterization of our Courts as impugning the integrity of our court system and the thousands of men and women who daily don their robes and administer justice in a fair and impartial manner.

Our partners share the view, demonstrated in polling, that there is a serious “perception” that financial support influences judicial decision-making. It is one thing to address perception that you, JAS, our partners and the ABA speak to often in our quest to drive money out of judicial selection. It is another thing to speak in terms of justice for sale as if it were a common thing.

No doubt, a small number of judges have roamed from the reservation and breached their sacred oath, some even to spend time as guests of the criminal justice system. But, these judges do not represent our judicial system.

In 2000, Ohio was in the midst of a terrible judicial election where an ad ran that asked “ Is Justice for Sale in OHIO?” The Ohio State Bar Association responded in an historic press conference stating without equivocation that justice was not for sale in Ohio. It led to many editorials condemning the ad, and the target of the ad was reelected with 57 % of the vote.

Our efforts at judicial reform and addressing the perception of money in judicial elections is too important to be sidetracked by the unfortunate and inflammatory comment of Mr. Moyers. Maybe, he got carried away by the Supreme Court decision and let emotion take over for the moment.

To impugn the integrity of our judiciary by representing that justice is for sale, when we are really talking about perception is not in our best interest nor in the best interest of the judiciary.