Judges, Not Puppets

In the case of state Appeals Court Justice J. Anthony Kline, the Legislature would be wise to step in before the Commission on Judicial Performance does some real mischief. A bill that would effectively halt the unwarranted prosecution of Kline simply for issuing a dissenting opinion flew through the Assembly Judiciary Committee late last month. It is scheduled to be heard before the Assembly Appropriations Committee next week and should be promptly approved and sent to Gov. Pete Wilson’s desk for his signature.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco), would bar the commission from disciplining a judge solely because of a judicial decision or administrative act later determined to be legally incorrect.

The dispute began last December when Kline, in a written dissent, stated that “as a matter of conscience” he could not follow a 1992 California Supreme Court precedent approving a controversial type of out-of-court settlement. These settlements, called stipulated reversals, which wipe earlier judicial opinions in involved cases off the books, have been barred in federal courts since 1994.

Nonetheless, on July 6, based on Kline’s dissenting argument, the commission filed formal charges against him for what it called “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. . . . “ Kline’s formal answer to the charges is due Aug. 19.

The commission’s unprecedented move against Kline, a respected jurist with 18 years on the bench, has been widely criticized. The watchdog panel was established to discipline unethical or incompetent judges, not to assess the quality or correctness of judicial decisions.

Kopp’s bill, appropriately, would not protect judges who have demonstrated “a sustained pattern of willful abuse of judicial authority” or have violated the state Code of Judicial Ethics. But the quarrel stirred by Kline’s dissent emphasizes that the independence of our judges is much too important--and too fragile--to leave to a matter of interpretation. Especially when that interpretation is in the hands of an overzealous panel that seems bent on teaching a veteran judge a lesson.