Should Sitting Judges Be on Talk Radio? The “Hannity” Effect

Recently, Judge Michael McCuskey joined Jim Turpin’s “Penny for Your Thoughts” to rip UIUC administrators for their “gutless” response to the disruption of Gov. Rauner as a campus speaker.

Years ago, “Penny” invited Judge Steigmann as a guest to take questions on legal matters coming before state and federal courts. Over time, however, Judge Steigmann has deviated from this legal role to offer strong opinions on political matters.

Both men are entitled to their opinions—but they undermine their constitutional role as judges who are supposed to be above the political fray. This is all the more ironic given WDWS’s conservative bent. In Federalist Paper No. 78, “Publius” (Alexander Hamilton) stated a forceful theory for immunizing judges from the crass and heated passions of daily politics. Much more recently, in Report #14-UA, the Heritage Foundation— a widely respected scholarly society of conservative thought and original construction of the Constitution— stated: “The proper role of a judge in a constitutional republic is a modest one. Ours is a government of laws and not men. This basic truth requires that disputes be adjudicated based on what the law actually says, rather than the whims of judges [emphasis added].”

The emergence of local judges as opinion shapers is more than an abstract concern. In my 2010 Iowa Law Review study, “Do Partisan Elections of Judges Produce Unequal Justice?,” I found evidence that “federal court rulings may have facilitated the growth of money in [state] judicial elections by making it easier for contributors to identify the views of candidates for judicial office.” And now, WDWS has cheapened the administration of our area courts by giving a highly visible platform for our sitting judges to express their heated political passions.