[EL] is it seemly for Justice Breyer to be pictured in his son's campaign literature?

[Lisa T. Hauser]

This is actually a pretty big deal -- for Justice Breyer.  The canons of judicial eithics preclude sitting judges from even appearing to endorse candidates.  Federal judges can't proactively recommend or write letters of references for individuals who are candidates for appointment to state courts.  It is safe to assume that Justice Breyer supports his son's candidacy, but he should not have been put in a position of appearing to endorse his son's election.  The picture may have been used without Justice Breyer's knowledge.  I would be surprised if he gave permission. 

Lisa T. Hauser
(602) 256-4462
lhauser at gblaw.com

Gammage & Burnham
Two North Central Avenue, 15th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Main: (602) 256-0566
Fax: (602) 256-4475
Web: http://www.gblaw.com/

This message and any of the attached documents contain information from the law firm of Gammage & Burnham, P.L.C. that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information, and no privilege has been waived by your inadvertent receipt. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
________________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Maurer [wmaurer at ij.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 4:34 PM
To: Lowenstein, Daniel
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] is it seemly for Justice Breyer to be pictured in his son's campaign literature?

Actually, the analogy to the British monarchy is pretty apt, as Justice Breyer's son has an uncle who is a Viscount.  I wonder if the Viscount appears in the advertisements too.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 3, 2012, at 1:04 PM, "Lowenstein, Daniel" <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu> wrote:

>          I don't see anything wrong with Justice Breyer's picture appearing on a campaign mailing for his son, at least if, as I gather is the case, it is not on one of the attack pieces.  Your analogy to the British monarch seems to me inapt, because just as the Queen would not appear on a campaign mailing, the Prince of Wales (or his siblings) would not run for political office.  It is common for candidates to appear in their campaigns with their families, and it can be taken for granted that the justice, like virtually any other father, "supports" his own son.  For the same reason, the justice would recuse himself from any case in which his son had an interest.
>
>          It is easy to get too Puritanical about these things.  (I use the term loosely, because as the great historian Edmund Morgan demonstrated in a famous essay many years ago, the Puritans were not as Puritanical as we tend to think.)
>
>             Best,
>
>             Daniel H. Lowenstein
>             Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
>             UCLA Law School
>             405 Hilgard
>             Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
>             310-825-5148
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com<mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com>> wrote:
> I live in a California legislative district in which Justice Stephen Breyer's son is one of the two candidates on the November ballot.  The son, Michael Breyer, has sent out at least 4 direct mail pieces.  Two of them picture him with his father.  The caption is "Michael Breyer with dad, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, and mom, Joanna Breyer."
>
> The other two pieces are attack pieces on Michael Breyer's opponent.  The opponent is San Francisco's Assessor, and the Breyer attack pieces claim the Assessor is corrupt.
>
> Both candidates are on the ballot as Democrats.
>
> It makes me queasy seeing Justice Breyer on campaign literature, even if the candidate is his son.  In a sense, U.S. Supreme Court Justices are the U.S. equivalent of British royalty.  The queen doesn't even vote, and it would be unthinkable for any member of the royal family to appear in on campaign literature for a candidate for House of Commons or a local partisan election office.  U.S. Supreme Court Justices, like the Queen, are formally part of the national government yet are expected to be non-partisan.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779<tel:415-922-9779>
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election