Attack Update: Feb. 23, 2006The attack: “Judge Murdock must be removed from office for misbehavior in office, neglect of duty and incompetency.” Only one judge has ever been removed from the bench in Maryland’s history — a judge punished in 1861 for getting drunk and repeatedly falling asleep in court. Judges can only be impeached and removed if it is proved they can’t perform the duties of the office. As Maryland Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Rowe put it, “There does have to be some cause. They can’t just not like you.” Dwyer’s attempt to remove Murdock is based on the fact that she issued a decision with which he disagrees. Dwyer’s actions show utter disregard for the principle of separation of powers at the state level, and for the rule of law. By seeking to impeach a judge on a case still pending on appeal, he is also making a thinly veiled threat to judges on the court considering the appeal: If you don’t decide the case my way, maybe I’ll try to have you impeached, too. As American Civil Liberties Union attorney David Rocah observed, Dwyer’s ill-conceived action reflects “a tendency, especially lately among legislators, to think that judges who disagree with them have committed some wrongdoing, and the solution is either, therefore, to take issues away from the judiciary or get rid of the judges. And that’s a profound threat to the rule of law in this state and around the country.” It is unlikely that Dwyer will succeed in his vindictive attempt to remove Murdock from the court. A two-thirds majority in both the Maryland House and Senate must agree with him, and the governor must also approve. But the message to other judges is loud and clear: if you issue rulings Dwyer or other legislators don’t like, get ready to become the object of the next removal resolution. Update: Good news: in March 2006 the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee voted 20-3 to reject a bill seeking Murdock’s impeachment. |
