MCJP v. DeLaugher? Make That MCJP v. MSSC
If there's been a question of law in Mississippi over the past 10 years that one would think the Supreme Court could reach a unanimous decision on, then the safe money would have been the issue of whether disgraced Judge Bobby DeLaughter should be removed from office.
In Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. DeLaughter, seven members of the Court agreed today that DeLaughter's tenure should be given the post-resignation kibosh, but only over the vigorous dissents of Chief Justice Waller and Justice Dickinson. In fairness, the dispute does not lie with whether DeLaughter was a bad boy; everyone agrees that he was. The struggle, rather, relates to the relationship between the Court and the Commission.
Specifically, the Court wrestled with whether it could remove DeLaughter from the bench (1.) after the Commission withdrew its request when DeLaughter agreed never to seek election again, and (2.) after DeLaughter had, after all, long since resigned.
Led by Justice Graves' majority opinion, the bulk of the Court agreed that it did enjoy that authority. The state constitution, Justice Graves wrote, grants ultimate authority over judicial discipline to the Court, despite the constitutional imposition of the MCJP into the framework.
In dissent, Chief Justice Waller contended that Section 177A of the state constitution empowers the justices to act only upon recommendation of the Commission. Justice Dickinson declined to join the majority for an even more practical reason: DeLaughter is long gone, and any expulsion at this point is, at best, symbolic.
As far as MCJP cases go, it's a fascinating opinion. These things are usually pretty mundane and frequently announced with unanimity. And even though the issue of after-the-fact expulsions has received a fair amount of treatment from the Court recently, this case represents that discussion's most animated moment. And to top it all off, nobody involved has a bad argument.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether you believe that the Court has an inherent authority to sanction judges in lower courts, regardless of the Commission's position on the matter. Justice Graves and six of his colleagues concluded that idea a contrary conclusion (edit) "borders on absurdity."
Sorry, your last sentence seems to go astray. The quote says that the idea the MSSC *lacks* such power borders on the absurd.
The majority's rightness or wrongness hinges on Section 175, which says that convicted "public officers" "shall" be removed. Assuming a judge is a public officer, I suppose that works, even if it does make part of 177A surplusage.
Reply to this
Right you are, regarding my flub at the finish line.
Reply to this