It’s reasonably clear that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht didn’t think anything of it when he gave dozens of media interviews last year supporting President Bush’s nomination to the US Supreme Court of his former girlfriend and fellow parishoner, trusted Bush White House advisor Harriet Miers.
But the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct didn’t view Justice Hecht’s politicking on behalf of Miers in the same way. In May, the Commission issued an ethics rebuke to Justice Hecht, determining that he had improperly used the prestige of his office to support the nomination of Miers. Earlier this week, Justice Hecht appealed that decision to a three-judge panel during a hearing in Ft. Worth (hat tip to Peter Lattman for the link).
The Commission accused Justice Hecht of going ìon a specific mission, a campaign, in connection with certain parties in the White House and their operativesî and, in so doing, violated two canons of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct:
ìA judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others;î and
ìA judge . . . shall not authorize the public use of his or her name endorsing another candidate for any public office.î
In response, Justice Hecht contends that the Commission misapplied the canons because Miers was not a political candidate, was not involved in a political election race and had no election opponent. Moreover, Justice Hecht observed that reporters were interested in his views about Miers because of his three-decade friendship with her, not because of his status as a Texas Supreme Court Justice.
The three-judge panel has 60 days in which to issue a ruling. The panel’s decision may be appealed directly to the US Supreme Court, which Hecht lawyer Chip Babcock contends that he will if the Commission’s rebuke of Justice Hecht is upheld.
What’s your perspective on this, Tom?
I’m inclined to think that Judge Hecht’s actions probably didn’t show the best judgment, but also weren’t an egregious ethical lapse. In Texas, we tend to be much bolder about our ethical lapses! 😉
But I’m one of those goofy political scientists, and not a member of the Bar. I’d be curious to hear what members of that club think.
Kev, your thoughts mirror mine. Miers was not a candidate, so that canon is clearly not applicable to Hecht’s case. Similarly, it’s a stretch to say that Hecht was using his office to advance either his private interests or those of Miers.
Having said that, I do think it’s a lapse in judgment for a Supreme Court Justice to be calling media outlets on behalf of a friend. Better to let them call you, if they ever do.