We are getting closer to the Fani Willis hearing, which should be fun, but another Democrat has raised eyebrows with what seems like another outburst of nepotism and the appearance of impropriety.
Uber-woke Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey (D, as if you didn’t know) nominated her former girlfriend, Gabrielle R. Wolohojian, to serve on the state’s Supreme Judicial Court. Wolohojian is currently a Massachusetts Appeals Court Associate Judge. (About “girlfriend”: I’m afraid I’m using that term because I just heard lesbian comic Sandra Bernhardt’s rant about the cold inappropriateness of the favored term “partner” “What are we, a gay law firm?,” she said. No, I didn’t find the routine especially funny, but it stuck in my brain anyway…)
Wolohojian seems eminently qualified for the new position. Her law degree was earned at Cornell; she has been a partner at a major law firm; she clerked for a US District Court judge, and she has 15 years of experience on Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is Healey’s nomination still unethical if Wolohojian is legitimately qualified?
“There is no one more qualified or better prepared to serve on the Supreme Judicial Court than Justice Wolohojian. She will bring over three decades of broad trial and appellate experience, including sixteen years on the Appeals Court,” Gov. Healey said in her press release announcing the move. ” Justice Wolohojian has served on the Appeals Court with distinction and her work is widely respected by members of the bench and bar. She has an exceptional understanding of the law and a strong commitment to the administration of justice.”
Conservative pundit Howie Carr of the Boston Herald mocked the appointment mercilessly, comparing it to Fani’s appointment of her current squeeze as a prosecutor in her “Get Trump” case, writing, “Gov. Maura Healey nominating her dumped ex-gal pal for the SJC may be the most brazen hack appointment ever!”That’s not exactly fair: Healey’s appointment at least is backed by solid qualifications and experience. In fact, having a former lover on the highest Nay State court could work to Healey’s disadvantage, as Wolohojian would probably have to recuse herself every time the Governor is a party in a case, which happens not infrequently. Unless Healey’s old flame is holding something over her to compel an appointment, this looks like the appearance of impropriety where there is no real impropriety in evidence.
What do you think?
_____________________
Pointer and Source: Legal Insurrection
Ethics Alarms 
Qualifications are all that matter. Nominations are just that nominations and not appointments. Therein lies the difference between this nominee and Willis’ appointment of her current squeeze.
An ex is an ex not a current love interest.
Once again AI screws up. The word should be therein not terrible.
Weird. I’ll fix that!
I tend to agree with you, Jack. However, in a case where there is an appearance of impropriety, greater transparency may be warranted.
But, I am not sure how much transparency is already there.
In my state, vacancies are announced; applications are received by their selection committee; candidates are interviewed; candidates are narrowed down again and more extensive interviews take place (I believe); then, three candidates are announced and forwarded to the Governor for appointment. The Governor picks one.
That sort of process would seem fair enough if the nominee got through something similar.
But, even in such a process, the Governor may want to explain the process better so that people understand it. If possible without violating any laws, the application materials could be made public.
-Jut
Yes, it is.
In government contracting, the appearance of impropriety is enough, and so it should be in all of government.
Where is the line drawn for such things? I’m sure there’s lots of debate, but that was a close personal relationship, the fact they’re now ex lovers doesn’t change it.
In government, and especially in the judiciary, it should be played straight (no pun intended, but I’ll take it), without a hint or remote possibility of undue influence. The fact that currently it’s anything but most of the time doesn’t change the concept.
It may be sad, it may be a bummer, it may seem unfair to the judge, but it’s not. The public interest in a government, never mind the judiciary, that at least puts forth an effort to seem impartial outweighs any other factor.
Have to agree with Bob, this is too close to “appearance of impropriety” and would call this person’s objectivity into question.
Are we using the word nominating and appointing as synonyms?
My initial response would change if the judge was being appointed rather than nominated by the governor. Nominations typically require third party confirmation. A direct appointment to a position does give rise to an unacceptable appearance of impropriety.
Either way; if she’s confirmed, the appearance of influence is still there.
And if she’s not confirmed (and shouldn’t be, but that’s not the way politics works in these days of “Get Trump”), it’s a waste of time and money for all involved.
I don’t think there’re any wins on an ethical front with this one.
I would agree if others persons than the chief executive of the state also nominate prospects. But if the Governor is the only person making nominations doesn’t the influence argument wane a bit given that that no matter who she nominates the governor has shown a preference.
Is it ethical to nominate someone who should recuse herself from maybe half of the cases the court sees? That is the MOST ethical course. What if she doesn’t recuse herself? Putting someone in a full-time job when they can only do it half-time doesn’t seem ethical.
Of course, the Massachusetts Governor and Supreme Court also feel that making a product to specifically comply with the law proves that the product is illegal, so I don’t understand their logic. Maybe they think the above situation is perfect by their reasoning.