Democrats loooove to demand recusals from Trump-appointed judges over nothing more than their appointments. Let's see how much they adore recusals when it comes to a progressive judge, a climate-change lawsuit, and a Halloween display.
Last week, Fox 45 News in Maryland reported on the specter of recusal haunting Peter Killough's front lawn. The state supreme court justice will vote soon on a lawsuit brought by Baltimore against oil producer BP, which claims that the firm deliberately misled the public about fossil fuels and climate change. His Halloweem display featured a number of partisan political messages, which certainly speaks to Killough's overall judicial temperament. One sign in particuar, however, speaks to Killough's direct bias on the case:
A liberal Maryland Supreme Court justice is in the hot seat over a politically charged Halloween display on his lawn that an expert said casts doubt on his ability to rule impartially on a high-stakes case currently before the court.
Maryland Supreme Court Justice Peter Killough, who was appointed to the court by Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, is taking criticism for exhibiting his left-wing political leanings through a Halloween display at his Maryland home.
The display included an environmentalist sign, which the expert said is particularly concerning since Killough is currently involved in a high-stakes environmental case.
The signs, painted on Halloween-style gravestones, depict politically charged messages like, "Here lies the Constitution," "RIP Freedom of Speech," "RIP Food Aid," "Beware Health Insurance Cuts," "RIP Due Process" and "RIP Climate Science."
"RIP Climate Science"?? Gee, that's an interesting sign for a judge to place on his front lawn while [checks notes] presiding in part over a case involving a dispute over climate-science claims. I wonder how Killough will rule in this case ... hmmmmmm ...
When reporters asked about Killough's very obvious declaration of his position on the issue, a spokesman for the state judiciary claimed the signage belonged to Killough's wife. That claim may be related to complaints from progressives over Samuel Alito's display of an upside-down flag at their residence. The story came out last year but took place in 2021, when Mrs. Martha-Ann Alito raised the flag in a dispute with neighbors. Democrats demanded Senate hearings over Alito's fitness for office, while activists called Alito a "fascist" (the neighbor in question used "Christofascist" to be more specific). Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker wrote at the time that Democrat weaponization of the flag incident was "an embarrassment," as were demands that Alito recuse himself in any January 6 riot cases:
Meanwhile, this supercilious scandal isn’t about flags, but about — what else? — abortion. As one justice, who shall not be named, once put it to me: “Everything is about abortion.” This is especially true now. Justice Alito was the author of the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that ended the constitutional right to abortion. He has been in the crosshairs of Democratic political operatives ever since.
That’s Footnote No. 1 in this tempest-y teapot. Footnote No. 2: Democrats dislike the 6-3 conservative-majority court — and the former president who appointed the three justices whose votes tipped the scales that reversed Roe v. Wade. Footnote No. 3: Having lost their bid to stack the court, Democrats are lobbing everything they can to diminish the court and the public’s trust.
Everything else is “heifer dust,” to borrow a term coined by the late Orlando Sentinel columnist Charley Reese. Charley was too old school to call it what it was: BS.
If Cavey and Killough hope to dodge a recusal by using Killough's wife as a scapegoat, this strategy likely won't work. In the first place, the political statement on "climate science" is much more specific, and it's related to a specific case before the court. Even if Mrs. Killough put the sign up, Justice Killough tacitly let it stand even while reviewing Baltimore v BP. (The rest of the partisan signage may create problems in other cases, too.) Justices and judges are warned to avoid even the appearance of bias and impropriety.
The problem for the Maryland supreme court may not be resolved with a recusal alone, however. Fox interviewed former Arizona supreme court justice Andrew Gould, who pointed out that Killough's bias has already infected the review:
"If it's a case where he has such strong political leanings, then he shouldn't have sat on it. The problem now is … the case has already been argued. The briefs have already been submitted. It's already been sent to the court to issue a ruling. How can you un-ring the bell now?"
The court would have to dispense with the current deliberations, force Killough to recuse, and then start over from scratch. Will they? At least so far, it looks like the judiciary is inclined to circle the wagons around Killough, but notably not Killough's wife, and will try to slog it out. One can anticipate that BP will have some interesting options in appealing this to the US Supreme Court while arguing to vacate any ruling for misconduct. If Maryland's judicial-review systems refuse to deal with this firmly and effectively, the bell will toll for justice in that state.
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians like Peter Killough, even when they hide under judicial robes.
Join Hot Air VIP, VIP Gold, or VIP Platinum, and use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member