Judiciary
Judge: Recusal Not Needed on Judicial Job Cuts Since Private Practice Pays More
Posted Aug 14, 2008, 10:03 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that recusal is not required in a challenge to a ballot measure that would cut judges’ pay and eliminate some of their jobs.
The court said the “rule of necessity” allows judges to rule, even if their own jobs are threatened under the proposed constitutional amendment, the Detroit Free Press reports.
One panel member whose job would be eliminated under the measure said the economic impact is minimal because he is close to retirement and he could earn more in private practice. Losing his judicial salary of $151,441 "would have almost no economic impact on me,” wrote Judge William Whitbeck.
The proposed measure trims not only the size of the intermediate appeals court but also the state supreme court, which would lose two justices. The amendment would also cut judicial salaries by 15 percent.
Related Stories
- Sotomayor’s Nomination: Today’s News
Jul 2, 2009, 04:11 pm CDT - Counsel for Accused Lawyer Must Be Given Control of Claimed Child Porn
Jul 2, 2009, 03:52 pm CDT - Federal Judge Plans to Acquit Mom Convicted in Landmark Cyberbullying Case
Jul 2, 2009, 02:40 pm CDT - New Mich. Jury Rule: No Texts, Tweets or Google Searches
Jul 2, 2009, 01:53 pm CDT
Related Topics
Add Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.