受司法伦理限制,美国法官对待审、在审、已审案件必须慎言,否则将受司法惩戒。但是,如果某人参与法官竞选,肯定要向选民介绍、阐明本人的司法理念,其间难免涉及个案评说。这种情形下,评点个案究竟算不算违反司法伦理呢?如果不算,是否意味着人们在竞选法官时,可以任意就个案发言?如果算,是否属于限制参选者言论自由,进而影响其选举表现?上述假设并非空想,而是联邦最高法院2002年审理的一起真实案件。 Judicial ethics restrictions, the United States judge pending trial, trial, the trial of the case must be cautious, otherwise it will be subject to judicial punishment. However, if one participates in the election of a judge, he must certainly introduce the elector and clarify his or her own judicial concept. Under such circumstances, is it really a violation of judicial ethics? If not, does it mean that when people run for judges, they can arbitrarily speak on a case-by-case basis, and if it does not restrict the participants’ freedom of speech, thus affecting their Election Performance? The above assumptions are not utopian, but a real case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2002.