Are judges permitted to express their opinions, or do they shed their First Amendment rights when they don a robe? Adam Liptak calls attention to a disciplinary proceeding against Arkansas Judge Wendell Griffen, who may lose his job (or at least face a suspension) because he made a speech that criticized the president’s decision to wage war with Iraq.

Last month, the commission voted to hold a hearing in the matter, saying there is probable cause to believe that Judge Griffen had damaged public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. In an interview, James A. Badami, the commission’s executive director, elaborated. “If you are a staunch Republican and a Bush supporter and have to come before this judge,” Mr. Badami said, sounding exasperated, “and this judge has now said some terrible things about Bush and the Bush administration — and now those people are having to appear before him?”

Here’s a better question: when a judge issues campaign promises to be “tough on crime” by making sure that offenders stay behind bars, touts her past experience as a “law and order prosecutor,” and trumpets her endorsement by law enforcement officers across the state, how will someone who is accused of a crime feel about having to appear before the judge? After all, the judge will rarely know whether a party appearing in court is a Republican or Democrat, but the judge will surely know that the party is on the wrong side of criminal prosecution. Isn’t there a greater risk of partiality when the judge has made campaign statements suggesting that she will favor the prosecution over the defense and will follow a uniformly harsh sentencing policy rather than tailoring sentences to the specific offender?