October 2, 2002
, whose posts are all surely going into a file at Democratic HQ for use at his future confirmation hearings, has obtained unofficial opinions from a couple of legal experts on the issue of recusal by the NJ Supreme Court justice
who gave to the current Torricelli campaign.
Posted by Orrin Judd at October 2, 2002 2:57 PM
OJ - I've briefed and argued the issue of recusal a few times (although not in a political situation), and without knowing all of the facts here (or how NJ's cannon of judicial ethics may differ from those of other states), my gut here tells me that there is no requirement for recusal. That judges may be Democrats or Republican is seen in every state where judges stand for election.
I think Lowenstein's analysis is right on the mark: unless the judge knew that he was likely to get his money back if he ruled a certain way, this isn't a "conflict" as generally understood for the purposes of recusal.
Suppose it were a bankruptcy case and he stood to either get his money back or not? I know that's different, but why?
However at least two of the justices contributed to Lautenberg.