Several Ethics Alarms reader alerted me to this gobsmacking story, further evidence that the political left in this country is in the process of suffering a nervous breakdown. I am still not certain I am glad they did.
The court alluded to in the title is the Hawaii Supreme Court. That state needs to be given a bit of leeway for its excesses and delusions: Hawaii, even after more than half a century as our 50th state, is still a very different culture from the other 49. That’s part of its charm when you visit there, but it also has allowed a problematic mindset to linger. Hawaiians just don’t think the usual rules should apply to them, even in relation to the Constitution. Two years ago, in State v. Wilson, the Hawaii Supreme Court wrote that “[t]he spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons,” and that Hawaii would read the Second Amendment “differently than the current United States Supreme Court.”
Oh. Except that a state can’t do that.
More recently, the same justice who wrote that defiant legal nonsense authored a full-on attack on the U.S. Supreme Court, tacked onto a rather mundane case about prosecutorial misconduct. I will re-publish the whole amazing section below, but KABOOM! It is head-exploding. The diatribe, because that’s what it is, covers voting rights, campaign finance, abortion, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, the major questions doctrine, Chevron deference, the spending power, the removal power, and birthright citizenship, while accusing the Roberts Court of being racist.
Such tangential rhetoric is known as dicta, parts of a legal opinion that carry no substantive legal weight at all since it is pure opinion without definitive case authority. Even dicta, however, is subject to certain professional and ethical constraints. The Hawaiian Supreme Court rantis a bright line breach of several tenets in state’s Code of Judicial Conduct.
Canon I states, “A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.“
Under that banner are three mandates: Rule 1.1. Compliance with the Law, Rule 1.2. Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary, and Rule 1.3. Avoiding Misuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office. A statement that announces that a judge does not feel bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions violates Rule 1.1. A judge attacking the integrity and motives of the U.S. Supreme Court undermines confidence in the judiciary, as prohibited by Rule 1.2. A judge using the prestige of his office to impugn a higher court is by definition an abuse of office, breaching Rule 1.3.
But wait! There’s more!
Canon 2 states, “A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE
IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.”
The anti-SCOTUS section shows a judge giving priority to his partisan and political beliefs over his duties as a judge, violating Rule 2.1. His unhinged attack on past SCOTUS jurisprudence indicates that he is incapable of “upholding the law,” and that he is also incapable of “impartial” conduct. Moreover, the opinion constitutes a flagrant bias based on political affiliation, breaching Rule 2.3.
The outburst is even worse than the many rules violations suggest. The logic is tortured, the law is bad, and the arguments are hysterical as well as not based in reality; worst of all, the Hawaiian judges appear not to understand how SCOTUS fits into the Constitutional governance formula. The core goal underlying the tantrum is an arrogant belief in judicial activism and judges usurping legislatures, as the Warren court did habitually.
As a final rotten cherry on this putrid sundae of unethical judicial conduct, The National Review noticed that a bot probably wrote the text. Nice. My position is that judges using AI to write their opinions is impeachable conduct, but then so is issuing such an attack on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is the section, and I must add, having just read it through again, the naked Trump Derangement and partisan extremism is shocking. This isn’t just unethical. It is judicial insurrection. Luckily, progressives don’t read court opinions…
Ethics Alarms 
Sure, let’s just let any state decide what SCOTUS rulings they will interpret however way they want! What could possibly go wrong?
Have you ever read anything like that in your life short of an AOC rant?
I’ll give AOC credit for the two or three times she’s actually said or posted something sane. This is appallingly ignorant of our entire system of government, the Constitution and the Court’s role. Is this just a bunch of Hawaiian judges trying their best to secede because they resent white American tourists?
I kept reading, hoping to find any semblance of an argument, but all I got was accusation after accusation, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. “It’s appalling that the SC would issue ruling after ruling supporting rich people and stomping on rights.” “What makes you think those decisions were because of that?” “Isn’t it obvious? Everybody knows it!”
The Citizen’s United bitch is signature significance. That was a pure First Amendment decision: the Left’s lawyers admitted that the law in question would allow movie and book banning, and the “corporations aren’t people” refrain is deceitful and lazy.
The legalese is not so easy to follow for us non-lawyers when the judge is actually ranting. Wow! I’m guessing he’s never read the Supremacy Clause?
The parts of the opinion I’ve read (as much as I can stand to read) are a fairly definitive collection of Democrat talking points. Who knows, maybe Hawaii supreme court justices are elected? The opinion might as well have been written by Elie Mystal or any other MS Now employee. An entire state supreme court has become Trump deranged.
IMO, Hawaii should have never been made a state. Maybe they did it to keep the field of stars on the flag from not looking goofy as it did from ’59-’60. Hawaii shares little to nothing of the founding and/or pioneer history of the rest of the country, and is only a state for strategic reasons. Providing us with arguably the dumbest senator doesn’t help their case.
HTML makes it so easy to make analogies.