Judge needs to recuse herself from the Notre Dame case

SOUTH BEND, Indiana, September 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The attorney representing the pro-lifers arrested while protesting Obama at Notre Dame today repeated his request that the judge in the case, who is married to a pro-abortion Notre Dame professor, be removed from the case.

Attorney Tom Dixon's motion provides detailed support for his assertion in a previous recusal motion that there exists sufficient actual and perceived bias that Judge Jenny Pitts Manier, the judge assigned to the "ND 88" case, is required by Indiana state law to recuse herself in the matter. Dixon states that ever since Judge Manier has known her husband, Professor Edward Manier, he has been a well-known and outspoken advocate of the pro-abortion position.

As his views were well-known and have largely defined his identity at Notre Dame, Dixon argues, it seems implausible that Judge Manier could claim to be unaware of his views on the "ND 88" case, which stem from "the single biggest controversy in the history of the University of Notre Dame."

The case surrounds the arrest of 88 pro-lifers from across America who were charged with trespassing after peacefully witnessing against the presence of President Obama at Notre Dame The university awarded Obama with the commencement speech and an honorary law degree on May 17 of this year. Arrestees were singled out for carrying pro-life messages onto campus - including images of aborted children, a large cross, and images of Mary - while several other trespassers with pro-Obama or pro-Notre Dame signage were allowed to roam the campus.

Dixon argues that the career of Judge Manier's husband at Notre Dame was largely defined by the very same controversies which prompted the pro-lifers to travel across America to ultimately land in the St. Joseph County court room. In Indiana, a judge must recuse himself or herself from a case in the event of actual or perceived bias.

In the original recusal motion in August, Dixon says that Judge Manier refused to answer whether her husband had ever written on the topic of abortion, saying only, "I'm not my husband."

Dixon highlights several ways in which actual and perceived bias exists in the "ND 88" case. In addition to several writings revealing his pro-abortion beliefs, the professor donated "a significant sum of money" to Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign, as well as additional donations to other pro-abortion rights candidates in the United States.

Manier, a supporter of the production of "The Vagina Monologues" on Notre Dame's campus, also attacked Pope Paul Paul VI's pro-life encyclical Humanae Vitae as "intellectually stillborn."

"When one analyzes Edward Manier's political contributions to pro abortion candidates and Political Action Committee, when one reads Edward Manier's writings referencing members of the Christian right, calling them 'fundamentalist mullahs' and 'jackleg preachers,'" Dixon writes, "it is hard to comprehend how Judge Manier could derive from her husband's writings the notion that he has no interest in the outcome of these cases."

Last week, University of Notre Dame law professor emeritus Charles Rice issued an open letter to University president Fr. John Jenkins, saying that the school's attempts at reconstructing a pro-life image were a "mockery" while yet refusing to request leniency for the 88 pro-lifers awaiting trial.


FWIW, I've felt that the 88 people arrested probably deserved it. Seriously, they were trespassing. End of story. The selective enforcement of the law should be addressed but crying "victim" in this case is counter productive, ESPECIALLY when they carried signs showing aborted fetuses. That last is just idiocy, it backfires on the prolife folks more often than not.

But the bottom line is that when you break the law you should be arrested. Period. No matter what the justification, Justice should be blind in this. If it means anything, I'd have gladly gone to Notre Dame that day myself and protested had it been possible. I'd also have had a full expectation of being jailed for my troubles. Big boys know the rules and play by them.

Having said all that, I also believe it's ridiculous for Notre Dame to push for prosecution of these people. The protesters were speaking the truth when they questioned just how "Catholic" the university could be if it was honoring B.O., our most proabort Commander-in-Chief. Taking these folks to trial is wrong and stupid, especially when Notre Dame is trying to foster a prolife image these days.

But one thing is always true about evil, it's characterized by stupidity more often than not. So I'm sure the prosecution of these protesters will continue, the judge will have to be forcibly removed from the case OR we'll see any convictions overturned in a court of appeals.

One positive benefit will be the continued attention on the issue of abortion in this country. Another will be the reemphasis of Catholic doctrine in regards to killing the unborn.

Just my opinion.