5/24/2019

28 Responses to “AP: Utah judge suspended for making anti-Trump comments”

1. This is correct, IMO. There are ethical rules for Judges but why shouldn’t Trump do the same? If the judge’s comments diminish the judiciary, don’t Trump’s rash comments diminish the Presidency?

   DRJ (15874d) — 5/24/2019 @ 11:51 am

   
   

2. His Facebook account was private, but could have been shared by friends, Pearce wrote.

   They can’t mean this literally, can they? I believe that if you set your account to “private” (or, I think in this case they mean friends-only) then your friends in reality cannot share your posts. I take it to mean that the concern is that friends could share screen-grabs and such, but that of course doesn’t say much about one’s friends.

   JVW (54fd0b) — 5/24/2019 @ 11:56 am

   
   

3. I think the concern would be that his beliefs would get out, whether or not his exact words were shared.

   DRJ (15874d) — 5/24/2019 @ 11:59 am

   
   

4. There are ethical rules for Judges but why shouldn’t Trump do the same? If the judge’s comments diminish the judiciary, don’t Trump’s rash comments diminish the Presidency?

   The judge’s comments diminish the judiciary because they are political rants. Politicians are supposed to make political rants. What I wonder about are FEDERAL court judges who make political rants in their opinions when they assert Trump’s motives to be racism and such.

   Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:04 pm

   
   

5. OK, but is the expectation truly that a judge will self-censor his or her beliefs in all cases even when speaking privately with friends? in other words, if I’m having some Memorial Day Weekend beers with my (hypothetical) neighbor the judge and he tells me that he absolutely can’t stand the mayor of our town because he thinks the major is in the thrall of greedy developers, is he putting his position at risk if he handles cases involving civic matters? It seems like it’s hard to draw the line in situations like this.

   JVW (54fd0b) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:05 pm

   
   

6. I also note that judges can be (and have been) impeached for behavioral lapses, but this seldom comes up in discussions of Trump’s impeachment.

   Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:07 pm

   
   

7. We don’t expect judges to be neutral (impartial) in their private family lives, but they cannot do anything publicly that calls into question their neutrality. They must have the discipline and self-control to rely on reason instead of personal emotions in their public lives, and that includes social media even if it is “private.”

   An inability to restrain emotions is evidence a judge, and a President, lack the self-control to put reason ahead of emotion.

   DRJ (15874d) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:11 pm

   
   

8. JVW, I guess it’s a matter of degree and local standards. I wonder if the same level of comments in support of Trump would have been treated the same way in Utah. If the venue was San Francisco, the result might have been different.

   Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:11 pm

   
   

9. The “in court” part might have been the real problem.

   Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:12 pm

   
   

10. OK, but is the expectation truly that a judge will self-censor his or her beliefs in all cases even when speaking privately with friends?

    In my experience, yes. Unless they are close friends that the judge knew before s/he was a judge. Even then, the smart friend doesn’t go there.

    DRJ (15874d) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:13 pm

    
    

11. They must have the discipline and self-control to rely on reason instead of personal emotions in their public lives, and that includes social media even if it is “private.”

    I guess that’s the nub of it: we assume that social media is by definition public, no matter what steps the end-user takes to try to make his or her account private. I suppose that is the most sensible way to handle that matter.

    JVW (54fd0b) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:15 pm

    
    

12. The judge’s comments diminish the judiciary because they are political rants. Politicians are supposed to make political rants. What I wonder about are FEDERAL court judges who make political rants in their opinions when they assert Trump’s motives to be racism and such.

    i think you have an expansive view of political rants. Is calling people derogatory names a vital part of politics, or a way to diminish everyone involved?

    As for federal judges, they have to deal with racism when it presents itself in cases. Our laws prohibit racial discrimination in some circumstances.

    DRJ (15874d) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:15 pm

    
    

13. DRJ (15874d) — 5/24/2019 @ 11:51 am

    If the judge’s comments diminish the judiciary, don’t Trump’s rash comments diminish the Presidency?

    They may, but he’s not a judge, and there’s no code of conduct for elected officials.

    Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:18 pm

    
    

14. I suspect what happened in court is what made someone look for social media evidence, although it could have happened the other way around. The main thing is that this wasn’t a one time thing.

    DRJ (15874d) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:19 pm

    
    

15. They may, but he’s not a judge, and there’s no code of conduct for elected officials.

    Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:18 pm

    I understand that, Sammy, but the Presidency is still diminished, isn’t it? Politicians who act this way diminish public respect for their offices and ultimately for the politicians themselves.

    DRJ (15874d) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:23 pm

    
    

16. Criticizing Trump was not the only problem, it seems

    In addition to Kwan’s politically charged comments, he was also found to have violated the rules in February 2017 when he had a confrontation with a court clerk about a staff member who had been promoted without his involvement. Multiple people described him as “angry” and “screaming.” A short time later, Kwan submitted a written notice for disciplinary action, threatened the clerk with unpaid suspension pending termination and directed her to be escorted from the premises.

    Kwan also has a history on being publicly reprimanded from the Utah Supreme Court, according to the opinion. He has been reprimanded in the past for a “crass in-court reference to sexual conduct and a former president of the United States,” and was also warned about participating as president of a nonprofit organization while on the bench.

    That centered on his involvement in OCA — Asian Pacific American Advocates, a national group, with a Utah offshoot

    “The organization took public positions on a range of issues,” the opinion reads, “criticized candidates for political office, and posted articles and press releases online that include Judge Kwan’s name and judicial title.”

    https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/05/24/utah-judge-who-made-anti/

    Kishnevi (496414) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:24 pm

    
    

17. I don’t think Donald Trump even has a concept as to how a
    president (or anybody) should speak.

    He doesn’t understand what is missing.

    He said he could be presidential. He mocked it in one of his rallies. .

    It’s not his not being slow and ponderous and saying something that dooesn’t really make any sense.

    It;s saying things that shows some understanding of the other side, that at least is fair, even if controversial.

    Sammy Finkelman (db7fea) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:29 pm

    
    

18. Six months without pay?

    That’s way excessive imo.

    Can we not have a society where we can differentiate personal opinions from professional opinions?

    I get the feeling that there’s more to this story…

    whembly (fd57f6) — 5/24/2019 @ 12:59 pm

    
    

19. “If the judge’s comments diminish the judiciary, don’t Trump’s rash comments diminish the Presidency?”
    DRJ (15874d) — 5/24/2019 @ 11:51 am

    Possibly. Therefore, what…?

    If only Trump’s rash comments got called out — just once.

    Munroe (8c1fb6) — 5/24/2019 @ 1:25 pm

    
    

20. The only body that can enforce standards of ethics and decency for the POTUS — this one, or any POTUS — is Congress, acting through both chambers, with a supermajority vote required in the Senate.

    I’m actually okay with that. But it does very much highlight how disastrous it can be for the country to elect a man like Trump, who is so indecent and so unethical.

    Munroe, is that really the best argument you can come up with? A sarcastic crack that “If only Trump’s rash comments got called out — just once.” Weak, weak sauce man. Saved from being whiny only by a tiny — very tiny — spark of humor, and utterly unpersuasive on any substantive issue, which I guess is great for Trump superfans, since you can deploy it in any and every context where Trump’s under discussion.

    “If only they got called out just once by Trump superfans like me,” I’d suggest as a serious amendment. But I shan’t hold my breath.

    The Utah Supreme Court’s written opinion, linked in the AP article, is actually pretty accessible to laymen interested in how judges supervise themselves. Notably, it begins (emphasis mine):

    This judicial discipline proceeding requires us to decide the appropriate sanction for a judge who has engaged in repeated misconduct. Judge Michael Kwan acknowledges that he violated the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct when he made seemingly shirty and politically charged comments to a defendant in his courtroom. Judge Kwan similarly admits that he violated the code of conduct when he lost his temper with a member of the court’s staff and improperly used his judicial authority to seek that individual’s removal from the premises. Moreover, in response to questions at oral argument, Judge Kwan conceded that an online post critical of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump also violated the code of conduct….

    Kudos to Judge Kwan (and perhaps to the lawyers who likely advised and represented him) for these admissions. Boo, hiss, for trying unsuccessfully to wrap himself in the First Amendment, for the conduct at issue occurred in his professional capacity, not a private one outside the courthouse. He’s a repeat offender, having previously

    received two letters of education from the JCC and two public reprimands from this court. The Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee has also issued two opinions relating to Judge Kwan — one not expressly naming him but directed to his conduct, and another issued in response to his questions regarding, among other things, rules limiting judicial commentary on statements made by a candidate for political office.

    In short, this judge was, when it comes to compliance with the relevant rules of judicial ethics, stuck on stupid.

    (I really don’t like that term, “Letters of Education.” Seems Maoist to me, but maybe Utahans have a different reaction.)

    Yes, there is an inherent tension between the First Amendment and judicial conduct codes and the First Amendment. You want to be absolutely free (as I am) to call Trump a bloody moron, don’t seek office as a judge, and especially, don’t do it from the bench while talking to litigants, as Judge Kwan did.

    Otherwise, though I think the opinion is correct and that justice was done.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/24/2019 @ 3:01 pm

    
    

21. Ok, I bring it by 8.00 or so

    urbanleftbehind (a9ef3a) — 5/24/2019 @ 3:05 pm

    
    

22. ‘“If only they got called out just once by Trump superfans like me,” I’d suggest as a serious amendment. But I shan’t hold my breath.’
    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/24/2019 @ 3:01 pm

    The present tally of Trump condemnations being in the range of 700 gazillion, adding 1 to that is bound to yield some serious results — especially from a superfan.

    Such results could manifest themselves in things maybe not quite so serious as a suspension, but perhaps mere trifles like FISA warrants, frenzied unmaskings, campaign surveillance and a multi-year SC — though these are just suggestions, and maybe way out there. Can’t we find a way to leash this guy?

    Munroe (e751f4) — 5/24/2019 @ 3:39 pm

    
    

23. I do have to commend the Utah Supreme Court for teaching me a new word today: “shirty.”

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/24/2019 @ 3:54 pm

    
    

24. Schoolish Marmy,

    While you couldn’t be more wrong about Patterico lacking courage to post, well anything, you should consider this your only warning about making personal insults or you will find yourself in moderation.

    Dana (779465) — 5/24/2019 @ 5:16 pm

    
    

25. i think you have an expansive view of political rants. Is calling people derogatory names a vital part of politics, or a way to diminish everyone involved?

    Well, it seems to be that way lately. And not just Trump.

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/24/2019 @ 6:50 pm

    
    

26. I do have to commend the Utah Supreme Court for teaching me a new word today: “shirty.”

    One that can only be used with some care.

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/24/2019 @ 7:23 pm

    
    

27. Um, yes, Kevin M. (#27). I initially read the line to include the word I think you (correctly) fear might be typed instead.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 5/25/2019 @ 10:18 am

    
    

28. 4. Just because judges aren’t elected, doesn’t mean they aren’t politicians. Just watch the breathless coverage of the Supreme Court, and that should be proof enough that judges are just politicians of a somewhat different stripe.

    Gryph (884aab) — 5/25/2019 @ 10:26 am