UPDATE: Yesterday, I wrote about the blatant conflict of interest at the Ohio Supreme Court. It went viral.
Well, today that conflict played out.
And one simple photo captures it all.
It’s this one:
1/
Now what is so egregious about this photo?
Let’s take a close look.
The woman standing before the Court, arguing this case—Ohio v. Glover—is a fine lawyer by the name of Paula Adams.
2/
And among the seven Justices looking down at her from the bench, listening to the argument, is this one.
His name is Joseph Deters.
Adams and Deters.
Remember those two names…
2/
Two years ago, the names Adams and Deters also appeared together.
Here’s the document where it happened…twice.
It’s in a case where they both were listed as and serving as counsel.
As prosecutors.
3/
What case was it? Funny you should ask.
Here’s that info, on the cover page of the document they signed:
Ohio v Glover!
The SAME CASE that Adams was arguing today.
4/
But today, Deters is no longer co-counsel on the case.
He’s a Justice who will be ruling on the case.
Yes, HIS own case.
And he could end up being the swing vote on the case.
5/
And if this seems totally inappropriate, it’s because it is.
The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct is very clear that a judge should not sit on a case in which he has been involved as a lawyer.
Instead, that judge is required to disqualify himself from that case.
6/
Only a few years ago, the US Supreme Court actually found it to be a violation of Constitutional due process for a judge to rule on a criminal case where he was prosecutor.
But today, defying such clear rules, Justice Deters sat on the bench, watching his prior co-counsel make the same argument they made together (and lost) two years ago at the appellate level.
Although he hid it in this photo, I bet he really liked her arguments.
7/
And he got to watch counsel for the defendant, who had triumphed over Deters’ argument two years ago, make the case to him.
That must have been fun: sitting as a judge watching your former opponent now being forced to win you over in the same case
I mean, how great is that!
8/
At one point in today’s argument, a question arose as to the actions by the prosecutor’s office around an original plea offer to the defendant in the case.
The Justices were asking about a deal that had been offered, and who’s idea that offer was.
People weren’t sure.
8/
Ironically, their colleague Deters—sitting right up there with them—could very well have had personal knowledge of the question that they were all asking about, since he was the prosecutor at the time that deal was offered.
More knowledge than anyone, perhaps..
Heck, someone should have asked him what he remembered about the deal.
But of course, that would have underscored just how bad this all was.
So he just sat their quietly, listening to his former co-counsel making the arguments they had made together only two years ago.
9/
For all the details on this, you can read this thread:
But in the meantime, when you keep seeing stories about how Ohio has become the most corrupt state in the country, is incapable of self-policing, and has lost its rule of law, now you’ll understand why.
And why a single photo sums it up.
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I may be just a caveman lawyer here, but hear me out:
The disqualification clause basically commands that “No person shall …hold any office…” if they “engaged in insurrection.”
“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
1/
That last clause is the key.
Any serious reading of that text makes perfectly clear that Congress is NOT required to be part of the initial disqualification decision:
1) Temporally: “remove such disability” makes clear that the disqualification has
2/
…already been rendered. Before Congress acts.
2) Mathematically: the 2/3s requirement undermines the argument that Congress must reach an agreement beforehand for a process for disqualification. If Congress is necessary to enact such a process, that would allow a mere 51%
3/
This morning, as we wait to watch Justices debate the meaning of a long-overlooked clause meant to protect democracy, let me continue trying to revive another bedrock pro-democracy protection in our Constitution
And based on polls from…
1/
…yesterday, it’s clear I have work to do.
Between 30% and 36% of my followers and subscribers said you had heard of the Guarantee Clause.
But if you care about America’s democracy, we need to fix that right away.
In fact, when it comes to democracy…
2/
it may be the most important clause in the Constitution no one pays attention to.
That needs to change.
Art. IV, Section IV of the Constitution.
Like the disqualification clause, it lays out a clear rule:
3/
One question: WTF is happening at the Ohio Supreme Court?!?
A 🧵
Just when you thought the ethics meltdown at the Ohio Supreme Court couldn’t get worse….
…we’ve got a conflict so egregious that even Clarence Thomas might shy away from it.
1/
Over the last several years, Ohioans with any sense of ethics have been horrified that the son of the Governor—a sitting Justice—refused to recuse himself from gerrymandering cases where his dad was the named defendant (because he voted for the challenged/illegal maps)
2/
And then, of course, son went on to vote FOR dad’s illegal maps.
Surely, Ohioans have cried out, a son should not be voting in cases involving his own dad.
And yes, ethics rules make clear that those Ohioans are correct: Recusal was required.
“The pursuit of truth under the burden of individual autonomy is a commitment that depends on courage and integrity quite as much as it depends on learning and intellectual power.
Truth is elusive and often disillusioning and painful…”
1/
“…A commitment to truth will deny you the dark pleasure of losing your autonomy to the herd. The tranquilizing effects of the trivial temptations of modern life will not bring you peace….
The essential aims of life are present naturally in every person….”
2/
“In everyone there is some longing for humanity’s rightful dignity, for moral integrity, for free expression of being and a sense of transcendence over the world of existence.
Yet, at the same time, each person is capable, to a greater or lesser degree, of coming to…”
3/
A few months ago, I wrote about the astounding letter written to parents by a private school administrator in the Columbus area—strongly urging
1/
them to accept the new Ohio state voucher, and including this chart on how much each family already going to the school would save due to those public funds:
The letter included this not so subtle paragraph: “Please note: If a family elects to not apply for the universal
2/
EdChoice scholarship available to them, we will respect that decision. Supplemental financial aid from the parish in this case will require a meeting with [X] before being awarded.”
Feels like you’re being sent to the principal’s office, doesn’t it?
3/
THREAD — The Disqualification Amicus Briefs and What They Show Us
I decided to take a look at some of the Amicus Briefs—the ones FOR disqualification I’m guessing the Justices and/or their clerks will review as they weigh the arguments.
1/
Because the text itself is so clear, and because even Trump and his allies have spent little time rebutting the facts of his involvement in January 6, the running assumption is that the Court majority will be eagerly looking for some other exit ramp to avoid disqualification
2/
Many of these paths center around who should make the decision about qualification—Courts or Congress?—and how they should make those decisions.
Other pro-Trump arguments assert that the disqualification clause is somehow more limited in scope or application than
3/