Case Name: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Connie Glen WILKERSON
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2004-07-01
Citations: 876 So. 2d 1006
Docket Number: No. 2002-JP-02105-SCT
Parties: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Connie Glen WILKERSON.
Judges: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. RANDOLPH, J., SPECIALLY CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY WALLER, P.J., EASLEY AND DICKINSON, JJ. CARLSON, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY GRAVES, J. COBB, P.J., AND DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 876
Pages: 1006–1026

Head Matter:
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Connie Glen WILKERSON.
No. 2002-JP-02105-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
July 1, 2004.
Luther T. Brantley, III, attorney for appellant.
Stephen Crampton, Michael J. Deprimo, Tupelo, attorneys for appellee.

Opinion:
DICKINSON, Justice,
for the Court.
¶ 1. In the case before us, the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance asks us to sanction a judge for his extrajudicial public statements of his views on the rights of gays and lesbians. We decline to do so and dismiss the Commission's complaint. This is a case of first impression.
FACTS
¶ 2. After reading an article about certain states which have chosen to extend to homosexual partners the same right to sue previously reserved for spouses and family members, George County Justice Court Judge Connie Glen Wilkerson felt compelled to make known his disagreement with those states, and his views on homosexuality in general. The judge sent a letter to the editor of his local weekly newspaper, The George County Times, which he signed "Connie Glenn Wilkerson" and stamped "Bro. Connie G. Wilkerson." The letter provided his home address and telephone number, and provided no reference to his official capacity as a judge.
¶ 3. Declaring that his views were based on his Christian beliefs, and upon Biblical principles, the judge opined that homosexuals belong in mental institutions. The letter was published on March 28, 2002.
¶ 4. On April 9, 2002, a reporter from a radio network called the judge at home to discuss the letter. The judge contends that the reporter encouraged him to repeat his views on the legislation and homosexuality and that the conversation was aired without his permission.
¶ 5. In the interview he referred to homosexuality as an "illness" which merited treatment, rather than punishment. He faults the radio network for awing the recorded statements which the radio station "unfairly interspersed" with comments from known homosexual activists.
¶ 6. In response to a complaint filed by Lambda Legal, the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance charged the Judge with:
1. "willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute," in vio lation of Article 6, § 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890;
2. breach of Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), 4A and 5A of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi (hereinafter the "Code") for his conduct in writing the letter; and
3. violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3B(2), (5) and (9) and 4A and 4B of the Code.
¶ 7. The sole issue before us is whether the judge's right to send the letter and make the statements are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
¶ 8. To be sure, we affirm our reverence for the judicial oath of office and the Canons which govern judicial conduct. This certainly includes Canon 4A(1), which requires judges to "conduct all extra-judicial activities so that they do not cast doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge."
¶ 9. Today's decision does not void, amend or diminish any of the Canons found in our Code of Judicial Conduct, nor does it bring into question the validity of any of our firmly held beliefs regarding a judge's obligation to foster respect for, and bring honor to, the judiciary and to the legal profession, generally.
¶ 10. Nevertheless, because we are convinced that the statements made by the judge in this case constitute religious and politieal/public issue speech specially protected by the First Amendment and because we are further persuaded that in some cases (including the case sub judi-ce), forced concealment of views on political/public issues serves to further no compelling governmental, public or judicial interest, we are compelled to reject the recommendation of the Commission and hold that — under the particular facts of this case — sanctions are constitutionally impermissible.
ANALYSIS
¶ 11. Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution charges the Commission with the responsibility of making recommendations to the Supreme Court for discipline of judges, including public censure. In practice, the Commission investigates complaints filed against judges, and makes its recommendations to the Supreme Court in the form of a findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations.
¶ 12. According to the Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation in this case, the offending statement attributed to the judge was contained in a letter to the editor of The George County Times. The letter stated, in part;
. the California legislature enacted a law granting gay partners the same right to sue as spouses or family members . In my opinion, gays and lesbians should be put in some type of mental institute instead of having-a law like this passed for them....
¶ 13. This statement, according to the Commission, violates Canon 4(A)(1) and, therefore, constitutes "willful misconduct in office" and "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute."
¶ 14. The rules (or Canons) of conduct which govern judges in Mississippi are found in the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct ("MCJC"). On April 4, 2002, This Court revised the MCJC, replacing the previous code which had been in effect since 1995. According to the Commission's Findings, the judge in this case "wrote a letter and sent same to the editor of The George County Times newspaper which was published on March 28, 2002." Thus, the letter complained of predates the promulgation of Canon 4(A)(1), and is not subject to it. Nevertheless, the Commission found that the judge "violated Canon 4(A)(1) in allowing his extra-judicial conduct to cast a reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge."
¶ 15. One might think that, since the judge's letter was not subject to review under Canon 4(A)(1), the inquiry concerning the letter should now end. However, this Court is the ultimate trier of fact, and is charged with the obligation to conduct an independent inquiry in judicial misconduct proceedings. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Fletcher, 686 So.2d 1075, 1078 (Miss.1996). In fulfilling that responsibility, this Court must determine whether the judge's statements in the letter and subsequent interview with a reporter, violated the Canons, irrespective of the Commission's Findings.
¶ 16. On March 28, 2002 (the date the letter was published), the only Canon which would apply to the statement in the letter was Canon. 2(A) of the Code provided:
A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
¶ 17. In its complaint against the judge, the Commission charges a violation of this Canon. Therefore, the statement in the letter should be analyzed under this previous Canon.
¶ 18. On April 4, 2002, new Canons (including Canon 4(A)(1)) were adopted and became applicable. Shortly thereafter, the judge repeated the statement in an interview on public radio. Thus, the radio interview should be analyzed under Canon 4(A)(1). However, since both canons must be analyzed under the "strict scrutiny" test as discussed supra, we will make no distinction, and refer to both canons as the "Canon."
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
¶ 19. The Canons which guide the conduct of our judges are a necessary and critical part of our judicial system. Disregard for the Canons leads inexorably to disrespect for the judiciary. We regard as a primary obligation of this Court the vigilant promotion of judicial ethics, which can only be accomplished by strict enforcement of the Canons. However, this Court clearly may not impose sanctions for violation of a Canon where doing so would infringe on rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, including the freedom of speech. ¶ Clearly, the government may — in certain circumstances — restrict the freedom of speech. When it proposes to do so, however, it must have a good reason. There are several different classifications of speech which, because of their various levels of importance to society, enjoy different levels of constitutional protection. As the levels of importance increase, the government's burden to justify the restriction becomes more difficult. For in- stance, "commercial speech," which usually involves advertising products for sale, may not be restricted unless the government can demonstrate a "substantial interest" to be achieved in the regulation. Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n., 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). The state's burden in meeting the "substantial interest" test for commercial speech is not as difficult as the "compelling state interest" test required for political/public issue, or religious speech.
Political/Public Issue Speech.
¶ 20. The United States Supreme Court has held and "frequently reaffirmed that speech on political views and public issues occupies the 'highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values,' and is entitled to special protection." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1689, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (quoting NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 913, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 3425, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 467, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 2293, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980)).
¶ 21. Where the government seeks to restrain political/public issue speech, it must withstand "strict scrutiny," which requires the government to demonstrate that the restraint "is (1) narrowly tailored to serve (2) a compelling state interest." Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 774-75, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002) (emphasis added). A prior restraint is narrowly tailored where "it does not 'unnecessarily circumscrib[e] protected expression'." Id. (quoting Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 54, 102 S.Ct. 1523, 71 L.Ed.2d 732 (1982)).
¶ 22. Obviously, the state will have more difficulty demonstrating a "compelling state interest" (as required for political/public issue speech), than a "substantial interest" (as required for commercial speech). It is therefore important in the first instance to determine the category of speech the government seeks to restrain.
Gay Rights is a political/public issue.
¶ 23. It is hardly debatable that the extension of certain rights to gays and lesbians has become an important political public issue. Numerous states, including Mississippi, have passed laws prohibiting the marriage of gay partners. See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-1(2). Some state officials have openly defied the laws of their respective states and allowed gay couples to marry. There is even a movement to amend the United States Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Lambda Legal, the organization which filed the complaint in the case sub judice, is a political organization which works to establish and increase the rights for gays and lesbians. Thus, the case before us unquestionably involves political/public interest speech. In applying the requirements of the Constitution to the facts of this case, we will first look to other jurisdictions for guidance.
¶ 24. In a case with similar facts, justice of the peace James Scott was disturbed about what he considered to be "injustice" in the administration of the judicial system in his county. Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201 (5th Cir.1990). Judge Scott wrote an open letter to county officials in which he accused the "county court at law court and the district attorney's office" of "adversely affect[ing] justice in [his] county." Id. at 203. The judge's letter was "circulated to the local press" and attracted a great deal of attention from citizens, judges and eventually the Texas Commission on Judicial Performance, which issued Judge Scott a public reprimand. Id. at 204. The Texas Commission justified the reprimand by holding that Judge Scott's conduct served only to "cast public discredit upon the judiciary." The Texas Commission ordered Judge Scott to show more restraint in future oral and written communications. Id.
¶ 25. Judge Scott filed suit, challenging the Commission's reprimand as an unconstitutional restraint of his freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States District Court granted summary judgment to the Texas Commission. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the reprimand violated Judge Scott's First Amendment rights. The following excerpt from Scott is particularly applicable and instructive:
[W]e have recognized that the state may restrict the speech of elected judges in ways that it may not restrict the speech of other elected officials. In Morial v. Judiciary Comm'n of La., 565 F.2d 295, 301 (5th Cir.1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978)), we upheld a state statute requiring judges to resign from the bench before declaring their candidacy for an elective non-judicial office and explained that the state may regulate the speech of judges in order to preserve the impartiality of the judicial branch....
We were careful to note, however, that our holding in Morial was a narrow one, turning on the fact that the resign-to-run statute, and restrictions on judicial campaign promises, were fairly limited intrusions into the political speech of elected judges. That is, "Louisiana's resign-to-run requirement does not burden the plaintiffs right to vote for the candidate of his choice or to make statements regarding his private opinions on public issues outside a campaign context; nor does it penalize his belief in any particular idea. These are core first amendment values." Id. at 301 (emphasis added).
Unlike the statute upheld in Mortal, the reprimand of Scott does infringe upon the right "to make statements . on public issues outside a campaign context" and thus touches upon "core first amendment values." Accordingly, the Commission must carry a very difficult burden in order to demonstrate that its concededly legitimate interest in protecting the efficiency and impartiality of the state judicial system outweighs Scott's first amendment rights.
We conclude that the Commission has failed to carry that burden. Neither in its brief nor at oral argument was the Commission able to explain precisely how Scott's public criticisms would impede the goals of promoting an efficient and impartial judiciary, and we are unpersuaded that they would have such a detrimental effect. Instead, we believe that those interests are ill served by casting a cloak of secrecy around the operations of the courts, and that by bringing to light an alleged unfairness in the judicial system, Scott in fact furthered the very goals that the Commission wishes to promote.
Scott, 910 F.2d at 212-13 (emphasis added).
¶ 26. The Scott court pointed out that, although the courts at one time condoned the right of the state as an employer to restrict free speech,
the Court has [since] rejected that approach in favor of one recognizing that public employees do not shed constitutional protection when they enter the workplace but nevertheless balances those employees' rights against the "interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."
Id. at 210, citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968).
¶ 27. In another case involving a judge who made a speech at a pro-life rally, the Supreme Court of Washington stated that "[a] judge does not surrender First Amendment rights upon becoming a member of the judiciary," and "[i]f a person does not completely surrender his or her right to freedom of speech upon becoming a candidate, then we cannot expect the candidate to do so once elected to judicial office." In re Sanders, 135 Wash.2d 175, 188-89, 955 P.2d 369, 375 (1998).
¶ 28. Here, Judge Wilkerson expressed his views on a political/public interest issue — the rights of gays and lesbians. We therefore may not impose sanctions unless we conclude, under the specific facts of this case, that the restraint the Commission seeks to enforce is "narrowly tailored" to achieve a "compelling state interest." It seems to us difficult to conclude that discussion of the rights of gays poses more of a threat to judicial integrity than Judge Scott's direct criticism of the judicial system itself. Stated another way, we find the integrity of the judiciary less threatened by Judge Wilkerson's statements about gays than by Judge Scott's constitutionally-protected statements which directly criticized the integrity of the judiciary.
Religious Speech.
¶ 29. We also face the question of whether the judge's statements were protected religious speech. Private religious speech is as fully protected under the First Amendment as secular private expression. Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 132 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995), citing Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993); Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist.66) v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 110 S.Ct. 2356, 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 102 S.Ct. 269, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981); Heffron v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981).
¶ 30. The Supreme Court has further stated: "Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince." Pinette, 515 U.S. at 760, 115 S.Ct. at 2446.
¶ 31. In the case sub judice, Judge Wilkerson framed and supported his opinion and statements with his personal religious beliefs. His letter published in The George County Times, stated that his "reason for responding" to the story about the California Legislature was "the last verse of chapter one of the book of Romans in our HOLY BIBLE." He went further to state that "[y]ou need to know as I know that God in Heaven is not pleased with this, and I am sounding the alarm that I, for one, am against it and want our LORD to see and hear me say I am against it."
¶ 32. In his radio interview with PRM, Judge Wilkerson stated that he signed his letter as a "Christian man." When the radio announcer observed that Judge Wilkerson based his views on "deeply held religious beliefs," Judge Wilkerson responded:
Here's where I'm coming from. Now if the Holy Bible's true, the King James Bible, which as a Christian man, I'd say every word from Genesis to Revelation is true, then God didn't put up with it in Sodom and Gomorrah, and that's the part that worries me, you know.
¶ 33. There are millions of citizens who believe Judge Wilkerson's religious views are exactly correct. There are still millions more who find his views insulting. Whether he is right is not the issue here. It is, rather, whether this Court can— consistent with the First Amendment— prevent Judge Wilkerson from publicly stating these religious views. We hold that, under the facts of this case, we cannot.
Prior Restraint.
¶ 34. The Canon, as applied to Judge Wilkerson in this case, constitutes a prior restraint on his right to publicly state his political and religious views. There is a heavy presumption that every prior restraint on protected speech is unconstitutional. Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558, 95 S.Ct. 1239, 1246, 43 L.Ed.2d 448 (1975).
¶ 35. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, facing a similar constitutional question, clearly defined the issue before us:
Admittedly, the Judge's comments created a storm of controversy and were not appreciated by many of the listeners, but it is in that context that the First Amendment plays its most important function. See Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 672, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 1886, 128 L.Ed.2d 686, 697 (1994), quoting Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15,24-25,91 S.Ct. 1780, 1788 29 L.Ed.2d 284, 293 (1971) ("The First Amendment demands a tolerance of 'verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance, 'as' necessary side effects of . the process of open debate' "); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 896 93 L.Ed. 1331, 1134 (1949) ("A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging"). The comments of the Judge cannot be construed as a physical or otherwise improper threat against the targets. The Judge's commentary thus clearly falls within protected speech and need not be punished in order to maintain the purposes of the judicial canons. As often proved in this State, judges (like anyone else) have a right to be obnoxious in their public expression. They may continue to offend, so long as they refrain from violating specific provision of the Code or some other law. While offensive expression may rise questions about the speaker's temperament and discretion, the Constitution requires that those questions must be answered by the public through the ballot box and not be this Court through disciplinary proceedings. The Special Judicial Hearing Board correctly recommended the dismissal of this complaint.
In re Hey, 192 W.Va. 221, 452 S.E.2d 24, 33-34 (1994) (bracketed material & emphasis added).
Achieving a Compelling Governmental Interest.
¶ 36. As already stated, the state's burden here is to demonstrate that a "compelling state interest" will be achieved by applying the Canon to sanction judges who speak their views about gay rights. Even our Founders were well aware that the government cannot always be trusted to accurately discern what is, and is not, a compelling state interest. Indeed, the primary reason we have the First Amendment to our Constitution is that our Founders did not trust the government to always protect the rights of the people against the powers of the government. Many states refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, granting the citizens protection from the government. Perhaps Justice Stevens said it best when he declared for the Court: "The First Amendment directs us to be especially skeptical of regulations that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government perceives to be their own good." 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 503, 116 S.Ct. 1495, 1508, 134 L.Ed.2d 711 (1996).
¶ 37. Judge Wilkerson challenged the Commission to articulate the "compelling state interest" in sanctioning judges who announce their private views on gay rights. The Commission's only attempt to do so was in its brief filed with this Court, wherein it pointed out that impartiality of the judiciary is a compelling state interest, and that "impartiality" means "the lack of bias for or against (sic) either party to the proceeding."
¶ 38. We agree that the Commission articulated a compelling state interest: "impartiality of the judiciary." However, the task is not finished. Having articulated a "compelling state interest," the Commission must next demonstrate how preventing judges from announcing their views on gay rights will serve to achieve that "compelling state interest." This it never did. Instead, it equated "impartiality of the judiciary" with "the appearance of impartiality of the judiciary."
¶ 39. No credible person could dispute that having impartial judges is a compelling state interest. But "impartiality" is not the same as the "appearance of impartiality." We find no compelling state interest in requiring a partial judge to keep quiet about his prejudice so that he or she will appear impartial.
¶ 40. Whatever state interest the Commission may find in preventing judges from announcing their private views on gay rights would conflict with, and be outweighed by, the more compelling state interest of providing an impartial court for all litigants, including gays and lesbians. Allowing — that is to say, forcing — judges to conceal their prejudice against gays and lesbians would surely lead to trials with unsuspecting gays or lesbians appearing before a partial judge. Unaware of the prejudice and not knowing that they should seek recusal, this surely would not work to provide a fair and impartial court to those litigants.
Recusal.
¶ 41. We feel obliged to point out that, having publicly expressed his view that "gays and lesbians should be put in some type of mental institute," Judge Wilkerson will doubtless face a recusal motion from every gay and lesbian citizen who visits his court. We can predict that the rationale for the motions will be that Judge Wilkerson is prejudiced against gays and lesbians, and he has a preconceived belief that their mental capacity as a class of people is inferior to society in general. Judge Wilkerson, on the other hand, may believe he can be fair to gays and lesbians in his court. Thus, in publicly announcing views which — although constitutionally allowed— nevertheless cast doubt on his impartiality, Judge Wilkerson has created a paradox for himself. Even if he feels it is his duty to refuse to recuse; yet, should he deny the recusal motions, he faces a substantial risk of future complaints with the Commission. We express no opinion here as to the outcome of such complaints, as the issue is not before us today.
CONCLUSION
¶ 42. We endorse the Canons, and we certainly endorse the promotion of an impartial judiciary. We also find, however, that the objects of judicial prejudice are entitled to seek a level playing field through recusal motions, and citizens who disagree with a judge's views are entitled to voice their disagreement at the ballot box. These legitimate interests are frustrated when prejudice is hidden.
¶ 43. There is an old Malayan proverb which states: "Don't think there are no crocodiles because the water is calm." This teaching is applicable to the case sub judice, because Commission urges us to "calm the waters" when, as the guardians of this state's judicial system, we should be helping our citizens to spot the crocodiles.
¶ 44. For the reasons stated herein, we find the judge may not be sanctioned for his statements which are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We reject the Commission's findings and recommendation, and we finally dismiss the Commission's complaint and this case with prejudice.
¶ 45. DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. RANDOLPH, J., SPECIALLY CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY WALLER, P.J., EASLEY AND DICKINSON, JJ. CARLSON, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY GRAVES, J. COBB, P.J., AND DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
. Also at issue is Article 3, Section 13, of the Mississippi Constitution., which declares: "The freedom of speech and of the press shall be held sacred; ." However, since the constitutional analysis of the Mississippi provision would be no different from an analysis of the provision found in the United States Constitution, we restrict our analysis in this case to applicable law interpreting the United States Constitution.
. According to Fletcher, this Court gives great weight to the findings of the Commission, which has observed the demeanor of the witnesses, including the judge charged with the offense. Nevertheless, this Court is the trier of fact and ultimately bears the sole responsibility and duty to impose sanctions, where appropriate.
. In 1892, while serving as a Justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the court, held that the City of New Bedford could 'suspend'' the constitutional rights of its police officers by preventing political speech. He stated, "The [policeman] may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman." McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 29 N.E. 517 (1892). This notion has long since been abandoned.
. In the context of this case, the difference between "impartiality" and "the appearance of impartiality" is that "impartiality" means a judge is fair and impartial to all; whereas "the appearance of impartiality" means the judge is not, but appears to be.