{"id":64385,"date":"2017-10-13T16:20:58","date_gmt":"2017-10-13T20:20:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=64385"},"modified":"2017-12-09T11:24:21","modified_gmt":"2017-12-09T16:24:21","slug":"diocese-of-south-carolina-rebuts-amici-brief-defending-state-supreme-court-justice-hearn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=64385","title":{"rendered":"Diocese of South Carolina Rebuts Amici Brief Defending State Supreme Court Justice Hearn"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>The Code of Judicial Conduct still requires recusal.<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>\u00a0<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>COLUMBIA, S.C. (October 13, 2017<\/strong>) \u2013 Today the Diocese of South Carolina (Diocese) filed our\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.diosc.com\/sys\/images\/documents\/tec\/2017_10_13_response_to_amicus_brief.pdf\">Response<\/a>, at the Court\u2019s request, to the\u00a0<em>Amici<\/em>\u00a0brief submitted on behalf of Justice Kaye Hearn regarding her actions on the\u00a0South Carolina Supreme Court in its recent ruling in Appellate Case No. 2015-000622.\u00a0\u00a0Her opinion there provided the deciding vote to deprive at least 29 parish churches of their right to properties some have held for over 300 years. Similar to the previous filings on the issue of Justice Hearn\u2019s recusal, 26 attorneys signed this response as well.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Statement by the Rev. Canon Jim Lewis:<\/strong><strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cAn essential issue before the State Supreme Court in this matter is whether the Judicial Code of Conduct means what it says. If it does, Justice Hearn should and must be recused from any further participation in this case. At a minimum, she should have no part in the Court\u2019s decision whether to rehear this case. Further, if the Court is to defend the due process rights of the Diocese of South Carolina, we likewise believe it should vacate her existing opinion and grant a fresh hearing before a new bench of Justices that is untainted by her failure to recuse herself.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Quotes from today\u2019s filed\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.diosc.com\/sys\/images\/documents\/tec\/2017_10_13_response_to_amicus_brief.pdf\">Response<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p>+\u00a0\u00a0 Regarding Justice Hearn\u2019s interest in the outcome, the\u00a0<em>amici\u00a0<\/em>brief \u201c<strong>simply disregards the evidence provided with the\u00a0<\/strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.diosc.com\/sys\/images\/documents\/tec\/2017-09-01-motion-to-recuse-and-vacate.pdf\"><strong>Motion to Recuse<\/strong><\/a><strong>.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0[p. 4]<\/p>\n<p>+\u00a0\u00a0 The Canons of the State Code of Judicial Conduct places \u201c<strong>the determination regarding recusal and duty to disclose and recuse on the judge, not the parties<\/strong>.\u201d [p. 8]<\/p>\n<p>+\u00a0\u00a0 There are no grounds for Justices Hearn\u2019s continued participation in this case. The\u00a0<em>amici<\/em>\u00a0brief itself makes \u201c<strong>no argument that prospective recusal is unavailable and inappropriate in these circumstance<\/strong>.\u201d [p. 10]<\/p>\n<p>Conclusion: \u201c<strong>Respectfully, Justice Hearn should recuse herself from hearing the Petition for Rehearing and the Court should vacate her opinion and appoint a Justice to hear the Petition. Failing that, the Court should vacate all of the opinions and order rehearing.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>[p. 12]<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.diosc.com\/sys\/news-events\/latest-news\/816-diocese-rebuts-amici-brief-defending-justice-hearn\">Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Code of Judicial Conduct still requires recusal. \u00a0 COLUMBIA, S.C. (October 13, 2017) \u2013 Today the Diocese of South Carolina (Diocese) filed our\u00a0Response, at the Court\u2019s request, to the\u00a0Amici\u00a0brief submitted on behalf of Justice Kaye Hearn regarding her actions<span class=\"ellipsis\">&hellip;<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=64385\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":794,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54,168,114,184,441,646],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-south-carolina","category-ethics-moral-theology","category-law-legal-issues","category-parish-ministry","category-stewardship","category-tec-conflicts-south-carolina"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64385","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/794"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=64385"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64385\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64387,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64385\/revisions\/64387"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=64385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=64385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=64385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}