Monday, January 21, 2008

The egregious Sharon Keller: Imagine a family court judge who is "pro-husband"

Regular readers know Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller openly considers herself a "pro-prosecution" judge. Noting that Keller attended SMU law school, the blogger at Appellate Law & Practice suggests:
While I don’t have much hope that this will happen, I would like to see the dean of the law school, John B. Attanasio, explain whether it is appropriate for a judge sitting on a “Court of Criminal Appeals” to describe themselves as “pro-prosecution" and whether it tells its law students to declare that they are "pro-husband" if they plan on going to be family court judges.
I'll email this post to the dean and see if we can get his position on the matter. (Don't hold your breath.)

RELATED: From the Dallas Observer, "Sharon Keller is Texas' Judge Dread."

7 comments:

TexPD4Parity said...

Maybe I'm naive, but I've had the impression all these years that a judge was supposed to be fair and impartial and just "follow the law."

Silly me...

Anonymous said...

She's an SMU grad?

No wonder she's clueless.

TexPD4Parity said...

Oh, c'mon, let's not condemn ALL SMU law grads.

Anonymous said...

It's disturbing to me that she's supposed to be a judge... and she says something like that. A judge that admits being biased from the get go? Looks like grounds for disqualification, to me.

DAC said...

If she were just a "hanging" judge that would be one thing. There are a lot of sitting judges that lean one way or the other or are more lenient, but she is a JUSTICE. These guys (generic term not meant to be gender biased ...) dont just handle one case issues: they are making law by precedent. Their rulings can have effect on a number of cases some that go to trial and some that never will. Big difference. It would be like have an appeals court that is pro husband or wife (again gender nuetral) not just a family court judge.

Anonymous said...

As a recent SMU Law grad, I can say with certainty that John Attanasio has very little concern for the fact that SMU and its graduates have a reputation for preferring the rights of the powerful over the rights of the individual.
It's really not a bad school, but the idea that a lawyer (or judge) has an ethical duty to ensure that justice serves the big and small alike is not the sort of concept Attanasio takes pains to see associated with SMU.

elvez1975 said...

I would refer Mrs. Keller to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct (http://www.courts.state.tx.us/judethics/canons.asp), paying special attention to Canons 2 ("A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities") & 3 ("A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Office Impartially and Diligently").

However, considering that she hasn't read a Constitutional provision she couldn't ignore, I'm not holding my breath.