Opinion ID: 1385357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 29

Heading: in the supreme court of the state of california

Text: COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF ) CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, ) ) Respondent. ) Nos. LA 31134 ________________________________________) ) LA 31140 STANLEY MOSK, ) ) Real Party In Interest. ) ________________________________________) ) STANLEY MOSK, ) ) DISSENTING OPINION Petitioner, ) ) BY HOPPER, J. v. ) ) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES ) COUNTY, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________________) ) COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, ) ) Real Party In Interest. ) ________________________________________) I respectfully dissent. Considering all of the circumstances Justice Newman should disqualify himself so that the court may maintain the appearance of impartiality and to avoid any suspicion of unfairness. More Justice Miller has appropriately set forth the reason for the inapplicability of Code of Civil Procedure Section 170, subdivisions 1, 4 and 5, and I generally concur with his dissent. In addition, I would emphasize that no constitutional provision, statute or officially published opinion of any California court has been called to our attention which procedurally gives the majority of the members of this court the power to disqualify one or more of the remaining members of this court. Such a procedure would be fraught with danger. The very thought of such an awesome power is frightening. Could a majority of the court exercise such a power to disqualify a member for purely philosophic or political differences on some theory of prejudice? I think not. (I do not suggest in any way that such an exercise of raw power took place in the instant case. It did not.) Such a power simply cannot exist in a judiciary in a democratic society. The legislature without violating the separation of powers doctrine can adopt reasonable regulations to apply to disqualification of judges. Such regulations need not list all of the factors which might cause a judge to be prejudiced. However, under the present legislation the legislature in this state wisely gave the power of disqualification to an individual judge, not to the majority of the members of the same court from which the challenged 2. More judge came. So long as Justice Newman is a duly elected member of this court he is entitled to remain so unless disqualified to sit, according to the law, or unless he recuses himself as urged herein. ________________________________ HOPPER, J. 3. Hon. Frank Newman, Acting Chief Justice and Pro Tem Justices State Supreme Court State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Re: Commission on Judicial Performance v. Court of Appeal No. L.A. 31134 Dear Justices: In response to a question from the Supreme Court, the Commission under date of July 25, 1979, urged the Supreme Court Justices to disqualify themselves because they were interested in the outcome and because they must avoid the appearance of impropriety (Canon 2, Cal. Code of Judicial Conduct). In presenting the issue originally to the Trial Court in Los Angeles, we recall that Commission counsel did not disagree with our view that no member of the Judicial Council at the time Rule 902.5 was promulgated should hear this litigation. In view of the Commission's previous declarations, we are confident that in the spirit of objectivity and fairness in appearance the Commission would agree with us that a Justice, who, as a member of the Judicial Council, argued and voted for the enactment of Rule 902.5, should not serve as a member of this pro tem Supreme Court. More