FC: Washington Post editorial says Judge Jackson may not be impartial

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

********
Jackson's MS-is-antichrist views were addressed in DoJ brief last week:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,41163,00.html
********


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63437-2001Jan15.html

The Washington Post (editorial)

Judge Jackson's Remarks
Tuesday, January 16, 2001; Page A20
   
   JUDGE THOMAS Penfield Jackson's recently published comments about the
   Microsoft litigation -- over which he presided and still retains
   potential future jurisdiction -- cross a line. In comments to
   journalist Ken Auletta, some of which appear in the New Yorker and
   some in the writer's new book on the case, the judge blasts
   Microsoft's general counsel, William Neukom, saying, "I don't think
   he's very smart, or at least I don't think he has any subtlety." He
   describes the company's founder, Bill Gates, as a man with "a
   Napoleonic concept of himself" and says that he has come to distrust
   the company, whose officers "continue to deny they did anything
   wrong." He also attacks the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
   the D.C. Circuit, who reversed an earlier Microsoft ruling of his and
   are now hearing the company's appeal. Judge Jackson says that the
   appeals judges "made up" facts in the earlier case and tend to
   "embellish law with unnecessary, and in many cases superficial,
   scholarship." And he announces that he attempted to craft his judgment
   against the company so as to "confront" the judges there "with an
   established factual record" that they would find tough to reverse.
   
   This isn't the first time Judge Jackson has spoken out about a pending
   case. His comments at Harvard Law School about Marion Barry's trial
   drew criticism from the court of appeals. Moreover, he has spoken
   publicly about the Microsoft case before, even saying that he felt the
   government was entitled to the remedy of its choice -- breaking up the
   company -- since he lacked the expertise to craft one himself. The
   judge's earlier remarks, in fact, are already at issue in the
   litigation.
   
   Such remarks, even for those of us who agree that Microsoft broke the
   law, do not instill confidence in the judge's impartiality. He says
   his comments merely reflect opinions he drew as the case unfolded --
   opinions that easily could be inferred from his rulings. But
   disparaging the company, its chief lawyer and the judges reviewing his
   own work, the judge only raises questions about whether his judgments
   can be dispassionate should the case be remanded for further
   proceedings.
   




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------