After the arguments in the case, Pariente pointed to a piece of paper in a conversation with Chief Justice Jorge Labarga. Labarga is heard reading the name “Panuccio” and Pariente could be heard saying the word “crazy.” Labarga then says, “Izzy Reyes is on there. He’ll listen to me.” Pariente appeared to say, “Look whose pick they’re getting …” and turns to Quince and says “did you see who…”
The justices appear to be referring to a paper brought to the oral argument by Pariente that was passed around during the oral argument. After Scott’s legal team demanded the paper through the public records law, they found that it was a list of the governor’s appointees to the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission as well as the dates when each commissioner’s term is set to expire.
I think it was extremely unwise for Pariente to bring such a paper to the argument which is immaterial to the legal issues in the case. The names of new justices only raises the danger of bias in being considered in conjunction with the arguments. That is the point of the filing which states that “disqualification is . . . required because the actions and comments by Justice Pariente would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial hearing.”
Scott also points out the fact that Pariente ran in 2012 by highlighting the danger of his appointing her successor. She warned that, if she were not retained, voters “will give Gov. (Rick) Scott the right to make his appointments, which will result in partisan political appointments.” The motion notes that the code of judicial conduct, which says that judges “shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”
While Pariente’s conduct was problematic and frankly injudicious, I do not think that there is a strong case for disqualification. It is not clear what Pariente is referencing as “crazy” — whether it is the specific nominee or some aspect of the situation. She can view these nominees as subpar without impacting her decision on the law. Indeed, her view of the nominees should be immaterial. Moreover, I have long been critical of elected judges who by necessity engage in politics. This is the very reason why such campaigns raise endless ethical and political problems. Pariente has long been a lightning rod for the right, which waged a determined campaign against her. She responded to that campaign in seeking retention.
I think that Justice Pariente should acknowledge that it was unwise to bring the list to the oral argument and that any view of the individual nominees fell outside of the scope of the litigation. However, the facts presented in the motion present a difficult case for mandatory disqualification in my view.
What do you think?