The National Organization For Women is asking Congress to investigate the possibility of impeaching U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent, who has been accused of sexual harrassment and numerous other violations of judicial ethics.
I don't often agree with NOW, but they're certainly right on this issue. However, NOW President Kim Gandy is wrong to criticize the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for not giving Kent a more severe punishment:
“The idea that any employee who has been found to engage in sufficient misconduct to justify a reprimand and a suspension from employment would then continue to draw a full salary from the taxpayers during that suspension is a shocking idea,” Gandy said. “It’s an outrage. He could go travel the world for four months. That’s not a punishment, that’s a reward.”
Article III of the Constitution prevents the Fifth Circuit from docking Kent's pay or permanently removing him from hearing cases. The only way to achieve that result is impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by a conviction in the Senate.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The Indictment of U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Kent
- Justice Department Broadens Investigation of Federal District Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- Details of the Sexual Harrassment Accusations Against Judge Samuel B. Kent:...
- House Judiciary Committee May Open Impeachment Investigation of Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- National Organization For Women Calls for Impeachment Investigation of Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- More on the Judge Samuel B. Kent Case:
- The Ethical Cloud Over Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Admonishes Judge Samuel B. Kent for Sexual Harassment of a Judiciary Employee:
(1) The 5th Circuit did it could, giving him a suspension with pay (a/k/a vacation).
(2) This is nowhere near enough, and he ought to be impeached, and THAT would end his ration of salary and power.
We don't know the context of the quote, and the reporter likely didn't know anything about Article III, just that they wanted something short and quotable for the story.
Trust me (and the Seventh Circuit Judicial Council) on this one.
Film at 11.
Is this the same National Organization for Women that wanted senators to vote for acquittal the last time there was an impeachment trial of a federal officer accused of a pervasive and sustained pattern of sexual harassment of women?
Assuming you're speaking of Clinton (who was not my choice of president), the issue before congress was not harassment or even his consensual encounter with an admittedly young adult. Based on the sanctions, the easy conclusion is that evidence of harassment (unwanted advances) by the judge while he was in office is more substantial than Clinton's history before he took the oath.
The lying may be a problem for those who consider fidelity in private consensual matters to rise to high crimes, but your comparison is inapt.
As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Now if I start agreeing with Kos, I will know I need to have my head examined.
I don't think a judge can retain his office in any meaningful sense if he is permanently barred from hearing cases.
Can the Fifth Circuit constitutionally require that Judge Kent be assigned to a full docket of habeas and prisoner litigation for the next year? I don't see why not, and I think it would be properly considered more of a punishment than suspension with pay.
I don't think a judge can retain his office in any meaningful sense if he is permanently barred from hearing cases.
Perhaps, as a matter of semantics, but I refer you to the case of Judge Duff, who did in fact lose the ability to hear cases -- without being impeached.
I have linked to all that is publicly available in previous posts in this series. I admit that not nearly enough is known. That is part of the reason why I'm only suggesting an investigation into the possibility of impeachment, not an actual impeachment itself. Part of the purpose of the investigation would be to ascertain the facts.
I think this argument is too clever by half (and, as another commentator has pointed out, the Duff case proves nothing because the judge in that case resigned), but in any event it founders on the shoals of the applicable statute. See 28 USC 354(a)(2)(A)(i), which provides that a judicial council can order "on a temporary basis for a time certain, [that] no further cases be assigned to the judge whose conduct is the subject of a complaint." Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Like it or not, there's really not much that a judicial conference can do to sitting Article III judges, other than issue reprimands and report them to Congress. The Fifth Circuit is acutely aware of these limitations. See In re McBryde, 117 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1997).
And it may be that the suspension is unpleasant for Kent. Maybe his one real pleasure in life was abusing his authority, and now he's just heartbroken. Who knows. Not that that would generate a lot of sympathy.