Utah judge suspended for Trump comments

Utah judge suspended for Trump comments

It’s all about location, location, location.

What plays well in New York City will likely take a pratfall in Anywhere, Utah, especially if it has a political flavor that varies from the predominant culture.

That’s why it is no surprise that Taylorsville Justice Court Judge Michael Kwan finds himself suspended from the bench for six months without pay.

You won’t find many headlines in a justice court. It’s where misdemeanor cases, ordinance violations, and small claims are adjudicated.

I’ve known a lot of judges over the years as I skipped down this merry path I jokingly call a career. I found them incredibly interesting. Every single one of them, regardless of how we may have differed or agreed on politics or the law, was bright, intelligent, and curious about the vagaries of law, of which there are many.

Each was serious about the responsibility thrust upon them when he donned his robes.

And like the rest of us, each had his own unique perspective on life from politics to the arts, and in turn, each had his own unique perspective on the art of politics, which is curiously intertwined with our judicial system.

Kwan suffers today because his brand of politics did not fit well with the panel seated as the Utah Supreme Court, which temporarily relieved him of his duties because of public comments he made against the president.

There were no threats, just some criticisms and questions that in light of the facts are very minor.

“Think I’ll go to the shelter to adopt a cat before the President-Elect grabs them all,” Kwan posted on social media shortly after the president was elected.

“Welcome to the beginning of the fascist takeover. We need to be diligent in questioning Congressional Republicans if they are going to be the American Reichstag,” he posted in 2017.

The comments, the Utah Supreme Court ruled, were “inappropriate political commentary.”

The court went on to censure Kwan for these and other posts it deemed as “laden with blunt, and sometimes indelicate, criticism” of the president, including one he posted the day of the president’s inauguration.

“Welcome to governing,” Kwan wrote in an online post. “Will you dig your heels in and spend the next four years undermining our country’s reputation and standing in the world? Will you continue to demonstrate your inability to govern and political incompetence?”

Kwan’s suspension rests on the accusation that he has violated The Code of Judicial Conduct.

In just about any other state, however, his comments would have drawn, at very most, a slap on the wrist and an admonition, because applying the code in this case is a stretch only the most aggressive ethicists would do.

Kwan did not violate the code by acting as a leader or holding any office in a political organization.

He is not accused of soliciting funds, paying an assessment or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attending a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate. It makes me wonder, though, how many Utah judges have made contributions to a political party or candidate or attended a political fundraiser. I would be willing to stake a rather large bet that more than one or two have contributed to political parties and candidates.

Kwan also did not make speeches for a political organization or candidate or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. His comments were in the area of fair and open criticism of a public figure as well as protected speech under the First Amendment, especially since they were given in support of his views on racism and civil rights, which a judge, according to The Code of Judicial Conduct, must uphold.

Judges often include humor or social commentary when handing down their rulings. Some are biting and some are deep, scholarly pearls that have quite an impact on our lives. Some have political overtones, because everything is political and has been for some time. It may not be comfortable, but that’s the state of our being. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a highly respected member of the U.S. Supreme Court, stepped into that arena when she criticized then-candidate Donald Trump as being a “faker” and wondered aloud what it would be like if he was elected. Ginsburg later apologized, saying “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office” and said her comments were “ill advised.”

It was, of course, a gracious act on her behalf, even though we know there has been no grace or dignity in what is coming out of the White House under this administration.

These are confusing times.

This is a time when we are desperate for leadership, the kind of guidance that makes us think about the consequences of our acts in the voting booth. The necessity of truth is vital to contradict the playground mentality and ignorance of an administration run amok. Yet we penalize somebody for the fears they express or the criticisms they suggest.

Instead of tightening the reins on free speech and expressions that are fully grounded in the events of the day, we should broaden our perspective, especially when educated people offer an opinion.

Judges, whether of the liberal or conservative bent, know the law. It is something special to them, and beyond all the bluster that can come from the bench, there is a real sense of fairness and civil rights that guides them. Even the most extreme judges understand the importance of the purity of law, and few cross that line where it interferes with their judgment.

Kwan may have made his fellow Utah judges uncomfortable. He may have made the people of Taylorsville a bit uncomfortable. He certainly made the administration uncomfortable. But we live in an age of uncomfortable truths.

Was Ginsburg wrong to ponder if Donald Trump is a faker? Not at all, especially with all of the testimony that he ran simply as a way to generate more publicity to squeeze money out of NBC-TV for his reality show.

Was it ill advised for her to ponder what kind of president he would make? Not at all, especially given his lack of political acumen and inexperience in the field.

Was it wrong for Kwan to share his concerns for a nation he has served as a judge? Absolutely not.

But unfortunately, he works in Utah, where the predominant culture allows no room for dissent or questioning the status quo.

The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.

How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent

Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:

Articles related to “Utah judge suspended for Trump comments”