A former President of the Colorado Senate wrote an op-ed demanding Judge Naughty to be impeached.
The allegations against Nottingham, a George H.W. Bush appointee and former law-firm associate of Salazar's, were characterized by the senator in a Denver Post story on Mar. 28 as suggesting the judge has failed to "serve in an exemplary manner, both on and off the court." He is accused of drunken carousing at strip clubs, surfing porn sites in his chambers, patronizing an escort service, and behaving abusively toward a wheelchair-bound woman in a parking dispute. The case highlights a definitional gap between the Article II language about "impeachment for... treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and the Article III clause about good behavior.
While being a sleaze, a lush, and a boor may not be a firing offense in some jobs, let alone a crime or misdemeanor, it surely violates the behavior expected of federal judges, as Salazar's words indicate. "Bringing disrepute on the federal judiciary and betraying the public's trust" were two of the three offenses for which Judge Harry Claiborne of Nevada was impeached and convicted in 1986, according to the Justice at Stake campaign website. Sounds like Judge Nottingham to me.
Though I as a Republican seldom agree with Salazar as a Democrat, in this case I salute his fidelity and courage for threatening the ultimate sanction against a seemingly out-of-control Judge Nottingham. The concern here is obviously not policy, but morality, ethics, decorum, and demeanor (NB: the opposite of misdemeanor). Regardless, I argue we need more -- much more -- recourse to impeachment of judges, and as the legislative branch begins finding its nerve on the personal-conduct front, perhaps congressmen and senators will start picking the right fights on the power-abuse front as well.
One of the most dramatic moments of my six years in the Colorado Senate (and one of my keenest personal regrets for not having supported it) came in the spring of 2004 when state Rep. Greg Brophy and other House Republicans filed House Resolution 1007 as a bill of impeachment against state Judge John Coughlin on two counts of "malfeasance in office for denying the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 4 of Article II of the Colorado Constitution" and one count of disregarding the Colorado Revised Statutes, all stemming from his lawless ruling in a two-mommies adoption case. That measure, sadly, died in the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee, with Speaker Lola Spradley offering little encouragement and with Gov. Bill Owens -- along with Senate President John Andrews -- on record against it.
But Brophy was right and I was wrong. If I had it to do again, I would support the Coughlin impeachment. Ken Salazar is right about the Nottingham impeachment today. It should proceed.
John Andrews is a Claremont Institute fellow and former President of the Colorado Senate
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnAndrews/2008/04/05/impeach_judge_nottingham
1 comment:
Naughty Nottingham didn't do anything wrong in his mind. He was always a loose man with few Morals and no Christian Values. He just said that because Karl Rove said it was what all Republicans should say. I point to the likes of Senator Vitters and Senator Craig. Two up standing Senators who well sinned and were forgiven so they could go back to sinning. Give Naughty a break and let him live the few years he has left and of course keep his job. What's worse Naughty hiring prostitutes or Musk Rat lying on the 9/11 victims. Look don't bring up Spitzer's name. Spitzer was just set up so he would leave office in hopes that a Republican would replace him. Who knew New York would accept a Black Governor. Rats Republican plan foiled again. Like most Republicans who have the money, hiring prostitutes is just the way they do business.
Post a Comment