Here's the law at issue:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-16 …
-
Show this thread
-
Here's why the council says it "must" end the proceeding, and the relevant statutory language:pic.twitter.com/ecyLOlIj8G
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
I'm not sure I read the statute the same way, so I looked a bit further. Here are the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings — http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/guide-vol02e-ch03.pdf … — and the relevant section:pic.twitter.com/H5efKzL8JW
3 replies 4 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
While there's nothing further in the commentary on that section, there is in a similar, earlier section regarding the initial review of a complaint by a chief judge.pic.twitter.com/GKH8VetWML
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
Note that the commentary refers to the language "permit[ting]" the chief judge to end a proceeding if a judge retires. If the statutory language creates a mandatory rule, why would the judiciary's own commentary use resignation as an ex. of "permit[ting]" concluding a proceeding?
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Additionally, this is what a judicial council can do with a complaint. Note (a)(2)(A)(iii) — public censure.pic.twitter.com/T93sHYjHUv
1 reply 3 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
The purpose of the law is to address "a judge [who] has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts."
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
I would think public censure of a judge who retires after a complaint is referred to a judicial council might very well still advance those aims — and, per the commentary, "help to correct a specific harm to an individual" (i.e., those who complained of that judge's behavior).
1 reply 4 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Anyway, having spent some time looking into the congressional process for dealing with workplace complaints, it seemed important to look at the way the system in the judiciary is allowing similar complaint secrecy/avoidance.
2 replies 4 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
The court's reasoning - that his resignation made the investigation "unnecessary" - is unconvincing, given he'll likely receive a generous pension under 28 U.S.C. § 371. I think the big question is why the investigation doesn't appear to be relevant to § 371 eligibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But it will be 371(b)(2), so I’m not sure they have any discretion that. Although, that raises for me a significant question: It appears that statute still refers to even a (b)(2) retired judge as a “judge,” which undermines the judicial council’s logic further.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.