Federal judges' new ethics guidelines criticized as more lax

[housewolf]

A judicial conduct committee has rewritten the ethics guidelines for federal judges in a way that legal specialists and critics said allows judges to take more corporate-funded trips and avoid disclosing their attendance.


The committee said it revised the rules in response to public and congressional criticism of judges taking all-expenses-paid trips to "judicial education" seminars. These events were often held in luxury hunting lodges and at Arizona golfing resorts, and paid for at least in part by petroleum, chemical, and manufacturing companies whose interests often come before federal courts, records show.

The new guidelines say a judge should not attend a seminar in which a financial sponsor provided substantial funding, and the sponsor has a case before the judge, and the seminar's topics are "directly related" to the litigation. Under the previous guidelines, written in 1998, judges were not to attend seminars in which sponsors providing funding were likely to be involved in litigation before the courts and the topics were "likely to be in some manner related" to pending litigation.

The new rules also eliminate a requirement that judges report the value of trips. They instead ask judges to "be mindful of their financial disclosure obligations."

more...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/12/19/federal_judges_new_ethics_guidelines_criticized_as_more_lax/

[NYC]

1. Were these rules rewritten with Scalia specifically in mind?

Sounds that way to me.

[TaleWgnDg]

4. No, not really. Why? Because this has been at issue for years

For example, see this website: http://www.tripsforjudges.org/


edited to add: And now w/ these new rule changes, this kind of data will be almost impossible to collect. As I stated earlier, I hope that Senator Leahy will be able to get a vote on his legislation that he has refiled as a result of these new rule changes. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5779-2004Dec16.html



.

[NYC]

5. Because Scalia is frequently breaking those rules.

Lightening rules re conflicts of interests would make him less often in violation without changing his behavior. (like a 9 day hunting trip with a defendant in an upcoming case)

[annabanana]

2. Corporate muggings.....

This is the rear flank attack in their battle on plaintant's rights. Make it harder and harder to sue a corporate murderer with one hand, and buy judges with the other.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. Here's the original Washington Post article . . .

which has a tad bit more explanation than does the BostonGlobe newspaper article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5779-2004Dec16.html


And I hope Leahy can get something passed to tighten up these judicial ethical rules instead of watering them down as this latest revision has done . . .





.

[snippy]

6. This is what happens when people vote republican.

More people need to learn the consequences of their votes.

[saigon68]

7. The Dumb Shits could care less

They voted for the criminal, cause those Gay guys should be jailed, burned and hanged.

[snippy]

8. True, but we need only a very small percentage of those voters.

On several occassions since the election I have heard people crticizing or complaining about one thing or another that the government has done recently and I have said "that is what happens when people vote republican." Democrats laugh and republicans are pissed but independents seem to think about it and agree. Younger voters in particular seem to agree. I plan on saying this several times later today at a holiday party. I would like to hear national democrats say it. Actually, I want it to become as ubiquitous as "have a nice day."

[Festivito]

9. Vioxx and Celebrex did well under conflict of interest.

Maybe this will help deadly flawed judges as it helped deadly flawed drugs.