A Loophole For Sexual Harassers In The U.S. Judiciary

Alex Kozinski on The Dating Game in 2006.

An upcoming book chronicles a loophole that allows federal judges to not only evade accountability for sexual harassment and bullying but to go on to enjoy a full salary for life and future professional acclaim.

Martha C. Nussbaum, in Citadels of Pride, to be published May 11 by W. W. Norton & Co., explores the tainted career of a former appellate judge who was celebrated for his brilliance, Alex Kozinski, a one-time chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago, says the Kozinski case shows the “structural weaknesses” of judicial codes of conduct. “E]van an egregious abuser can survive for twenty years if he is bright, flamboyant, well-connected and shameless,” she writes.

The loophole that worked for Kozinski – and others – is that he was permitted to resign in 2017 after more than a dozen women accused him of sexual harassment. Because he was retired, he was eligible to receive his pension – which was his full salary – for the rest of his life.

Continue reading “A Loophole For Sexual Harassers In The U.S. Judiciary”

It’s Not an ‘Impeachment Trial’ So What Is It?

The impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: states: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”

The Constitution expressly requires the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to preside over a presidential impeachment trial. But Chief Justice John Roberts is nowhere to be seen in the ongoing U.S. Senate “trial” of former President Donald J. Trump.

Instead, Senate President Pro Tempore John Leahy, a partisan Democrat from Vermont who already has declared his support for Trump’s impeachment, is presiding.  Leahy is also a juror, which makes the situation even more absurd.

If it is Robert’s job to preside at the impeachment trial then he darn well should be doing it. But he is definitely not there. He’s not sick or otherwise incapacitated. He’s just absent.

The Supreme Court has no comment about Roberts’ absence from Trump’s second “impeachment trial.” There is speculation that Roberts refused to preside because Trump is no longer President. As previously noted, the impeachment clause specifically pertains to “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried.”

Roberts’ Absence = Not An Impeachment Trial

Continue reading “It’s Not an ‘Impeachment Trial’ So What Is It?”