Whether the California Supreme Court should be ordered to grant an appellate review do-over when due-process compels a permanently-removed-judge's retroactive-constitutional-disqualification

QUESTION PRESENTED a On This case involves the first time this Court could enforce the due process right to impartial appellate review by retroactively disqualifying a judge that had been permanently removed from office based on previously concealed , misconduct that directly infected two appellate cases. California Appellate Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson ("Johnson") was removed from office and disqualified as a judge in 2021. (App. 2a-112a). His permanent disqualification stemmed from his misconduct that occurred inside and outside the courthouse from 2009 through 2018. (App. 7a, App. 109a, App. 112a). The previously concealed misconduct had polluted the three-member panel and a ; critical witness in two appellate cases. (App. 113a, App. 118a). Johnson's disqualification was imposed prospectively but the California Supreme Court denied discretionary review regarding his constitutional disqualification in two appellate cases seriously infected by his misconduct. (App. la). It would be a ' radical extension of judicial power to allow judicial misconduct to trample on constitutional guarantees by disqualifying a judge prospectively but not retroactively when the misconduct directly infected the removed judge's appellate decisions. ‘ Due process compels a removed judge's retroactive constitutional disqualification with an appellate review do-over by mandamus relief. The petitioner was mistakenly and unjustifiably deprived of her life, liberty, and property interests and denied the right to an independent and impartial . tribunal in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution based on Johnson's misconduct. 2 The question presented is: Whether the California Supreme Court should be directed to order an appellate review do-over when due process compels a permanently removed judge's retroactive constitutional disqualification? 83 ‘