 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Osborne7/1/2004
).
. This is a case of first impression - as such, there are no "like cases" in Mississippi. The Commission's attorneys argued for Judge Osborne's removal. The Commission instead found and recommended to this Court that a public reprimand "fits the offense" Judge Osborne committed and is, therefore, the appropriate penalty. I disagree with the Commission and instead agree with the Commission's attorneys.
. Despite the fact that we have no judicial authority to guide our disposition of this matter, the most important form of governmental proclamation, made by elected legislative representatives of the People, mandates the appropriate path in this case: Judge Osborne must be removed from office. It is true that this Court is the trier of fact in judicial misconduct cases and reviews de novo the Commission's recommendations. But here, the Legislature has mandated that we remove Judge Osborne from office. As the majority freely admits, we must read Sections 9-9-9 and 9-1-25 together in this case. The majority determines that, based on Section 9-1-25, Judge Osborne had six months to wind down his practice. Thus, the majority relies on Section 9-1-25 for the duration of the allowable winding down period. However, in the next breath, the majority refers to removal from office as "an extreme and draconian measure," a measure which "in no way...fit this offense." But the Legislature stated in Section 9-1-25 that "any person offending against this prohibition shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor and be removed from office." (emphasis added). Whether this is a draconian measure or not, it is the law, and we are not in a position to ignore it.
. It is not the province of this Court to amend or enact legislation. Absent some finding of constitutional infirmity, the Court is bound to apply statutes as they are written. Separation of powers is a fundamental and core principle in our form of government. Concluding that Judge Osborne should be sanctioned in any manner less severe than removal from office would be an usurpation of our esteemed Legislature's power. As we are all aware, this Court applies and interprets the laws that the Legislature sees fit to pass and the Governor chooses to sign - the Court does not, however, write the laws of this State. Moreover, the Court does not pass on the wisdom of duly-enacted statutes - it simply applies and interprets those laws. Further, the Court does not usurp, seize or otherwise assume the power of either coequal branch of our State government - rather, the Court cooperates with them to ensure that justice will prevail in each and every case that is tried in the State of Mississippi. Justice is best served by the fair, even-handed application of statutes in the form that the Legislature wrote them. The Legislature has set the punishment for county judges that violate Section 9-9-9, and the Court is bound to apply that sanction.
. When one considers the similarities between the county, circuit, and chancery courts, it is a bit surprising that the majority treats county courts differently in the context of Section 9-1-25. Judges of these courts are all elected by the People to four-year terms. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 9 -7-1,& -5-1 (Rev. 2002). They must be practicing lawyers for five years, at least twenty-six years old, and citizens of this State for at least five years. Miss. Const. art. 6, § 154; Miss. Code Ann. § 9-9-5 (Rev. 2002). Chancellors, as well as county and circuit court judges, are members of the Conference of Mississippi Judges. As I have already noted, Miss. Code Ann. § 9-1-25 applies to county, circuit, and chancery court judges. It provides a six-month winding down period after a judge takes the bench. If he or she v
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|