Wampum

Let's fast forward to next October. The Yankees and the Cardinals have reached the World Series. As game 7 approaches, it is revealed that the umpire scheduled to work home plate has placed a bet on the Cardinals. If the Cardinals win, the umpire will win money. If the Yankees win, the umpire will lose money. What would the reaction be to that revelation?

Is there any chance that any Commissioner of baseball, even Bud Selig, would allow the game 7 assignment to stand? Would anyone argue that the umpire should be allowed to call the game?

Now assume that the revelation of the umpire's financial interest in the outcome of game 7 was not revealed until after the game, which the Yankees lost on a controversial call by the umpire. If Bud Selig then proposed to promote the umpire to a position supervising other umpires, would that be appropriate?

I have one last question. Is the position of a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals position any less important that that of a World Series Umpire?

Salon reports:

Starting in 2002, Terrence W. Boyle, a longtime federal district court judge in North Carolina, presided over a lawsuit against General Electric, in which the corporation stood accused of illegally denying disability benefits to a long-standing employee. Deep into the case, on Jan. 15, 2004, Judge Boyle bought stock in General Electric, according to a review of his financial filings. Two months later, he made his ruling: Boyle shot down the plaintiff's claims to long-term and pension disability benefits, granting him only a fraction of the money in short-term compensation for a debilitating mental condition.

That is not the only time Judge Boyle has had a financial interest in the outcome of a case over which he presided.

In fact, since his May 2001 nomination, Boyle has issued orders in at least nine cases that involved five different corporations in which he reported stock holdings, according to financial and court documents. In most of the cases, Boyle ruled in favor of the companies in which he had financial interests -- though his participation was a violation of the law regardless of how he ruled. Federal law and the official Code of Conduct for U.S. judges explicitly prohibit judges from sitting on such cases -- no matter how small their stock holdings -- in order to ensure public trust in the judicial system. From 1999 to 2004 (the years that Boyle's financial disclosure forms are currently available), he broke the rules in at least one case per year. Boyle presided as chief judge of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina during those years.

George W. Bush has chosen to promote Judge Boyle from the District Court to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. His nomination is now before the Senate. Regardless of Judge Boyle's legal ability, political orientation, or any other factor, he broke the rules, his impartiality has been compromised, and his confirmation should be defeated.

Democrats plan to filibuster the Boyle nomination. I think that is a mistake. They should debate it, force a vote, vote against it, and dare the Republicans to confirm him. If Republicans choose to confirm Judge Boyle's nomination, Democrats should make it a campaign issue. Nothing would go further to explain the culture of corruption of the Republican Party more clearly than a vote to promote the umpire who bet on games he was assigned to call.