The Canons in the Courts: Recent First Amendment Rulings

Abstract

views on legal issues unlikely ever to appear on that judge’s docket, the absence of concerns comparable to those that arise during a campaign should be evident. Take the intriguing case of New Jersey trial judge Evan Broadbelt. Several 123 years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court insisted that Judge Broadbelt relinquish his immensely popular Court TV commentator role, even though he scrupulously avoided topics on which he might ever have to rule. Such a 124 sanction not only deprived viewers of an invaluable source of insight into the mysterious workings of the judicial system—the O.J. Simpson criminal case or the trial of the Menendez brothers, for example—but, from the judge’s perspective, seemed quite remote from those interests that would warrant limits on judicial campaign speech. Judicial speech cases of another and more controversial type are less readily dismissed. Consider the experience of Justice Richard Sanders of the Washington Supreme Court. Moments after he had sworn the oath of office 126 in 1995, for a six-year term, Sanders addressed a nearby rally sponsored by an anti-abortion group who had been prominent among his supporters. In his brief remarks, he observed: “Nothing is, nor should be, more fundamental in our legal system than the preservation and protection of innocent human life.” Later, he 127 added, “I owe my election to many of the people who are here today.” In 128 closing, Sanders declared: “Our mutual pursuit of justice requires a lifetime of dedication and courage,” for which he urged his supporters to “keep up the 129