Judge Samuel Kent: A Bigger Horndog Than Bill Clinton?
As regular ATL readers will recall, Judge Samuel B. Kent (S.D. Texas) is currently on leave from the bench (although still collecting his $165,200 salary). The Fifth Circuit suspended him after allegations of what it described as sexual harassment.
But Judge Kent's troubles may not be over yet. From the Galveston County Daily News (via How Appealing):
A woman who has accused U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of unwanted sexual touching will have her case reheard by a disciplinary panel of the 5th Judicial Circuit, her attorney, Rusty Hardin, said late Monday.Late that afternoon, Hardin gave the panel summaries of interviews his team did of 20 people who have had contact with Kent. Hardin claims those interviews show that Kent has misbehaved toward women since shortly after he was named to the federal bench in Galveston in the early 1990s.
Hardin said he and his client are asking that the panel refer the matter to the Judicial Council of the United States with a recommendation that Kent be impeached.
Additional discussion, plus a reader poll, after the jump.
To refresh your memory about the most recent allegations against Judge Kent:
The 5th Circuit in September suspended and reprimanded Kent after The Daily news made public a complaint filed against him by his case manager, Cathy McBroom. In its order, the 5th Circuit said only that McBroom had complained of “sexual harassment.”But her mother and a close friend said McBroom complained of more serious behavior. McBroom said that, when she was in Kent’s office on a Friday afternoon in March, Kent pushed up her shirt and bra, put his mouth on her breast and pushed her head toward his crotch.
We're in a very poll-ish mood today. What do you think of L'Affaire Kent?
Another hearing for Kent’s accuser [Galveston County Daily News]
Kent may face worse hurdles in sex misconduct case [Houston Chronicle]
Woman seeks more punishment for judge accused of sex misconduct [AP]
(Gavel bang for all three links: How Appealing.)
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Judge Samuel B. Kent (scroll down)
(65) Comments
it feels so damn good
Clearly the best part of this is that counsel's name is "Rusty Hardin." You can't make this stuff up, people.
These pretzels...are making me FIRSTY
How did he push her head toward his crotch if he had his mouth on her breast? They both start from a standing position, right? So Kent allegedly leans forward to put his mouth on her breast-- he's now hunched over in front of her with his head between her face and his crotch. It doesn't seem physically possible. Or is the allegation that he put his mouth on her breast, then took it away, stood up, and then pushed her head toward his crotch?
How could you not vote yes to this poll? I take the John Houseman approach to BJ's: get them the old fashioned way...EARN them.
Plus...is it me, or doesn't "Rusty Hardin" distinctly seem like a porn name?!
Impeached!? PC police definition notwithstanding, sexual harassment is not a high crime or misdemeanor.
Impeach him.
4:18,
Sexual *assault* is a felony.
If the allegations are true, that's not just sexual harassment, but sexual assault.
4:18,
I believe assault and battery (maybe some form of sexual assault or battery) might just qualify as a "high crime or misdemeanor".
Despite the porn star name, Rusty Hardin is a very successful (and feared) plaintiffs' lawyer.
Hmm--at my office, the sexual harassment policy says you can't ask someone out repeatedly, but is silent as to mouth-breast contact. So I'll assume that it's cool.
Do any lawyers read this blog anymore? To be impeached, a majority of the House must conclude that Kent has committed an impeachable offense. Sexual harassment is not even a crime or misdemeanor, let alone a "high" crime or misdemeanor. Come on folks, start reasoning like lawyers.
4:26,
As any 1L ought to understand, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever the House says it means, so quibbling about legalistic definitions is pointless when the offense is such that Congress would be almost sure to impeach. If you think any elected representatives are going to vote that sexual assault is not grounds for impeachment, you're an idiot.
So, it's official, at least 90.5% of ATL readers are more ignorant than the author of a Wikipedia entry:
High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
"High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.
The first impeachment conviction by the U.S. Senate was in 1804 of District Judge John Pickering for the high crime and misdemeanor of chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.
Sexual harassment IS NOT even a crime and no one has accused Kent of sexual assault.
FRAT STUD > JT > SLJ > WGWAG > L2L > Al Gore > Hof1L....
Am I missing anyone??? Lat, how about a poll for most notorious ATL character???
No impeachment. She enjoyed it.
4:31,
Just to make it simple for your Wikipedia-level comprehension, "unwanted sexual touching" = sexual assault.
Lat you're always in the mood for a pole
4:37 - Thanks for simplifying the criminal justice system for everyone. Now, anyone can be tried and convicted for "sexual assault" without any charges of such.
Hardin also represented Arthur Andersen in the criminal trial. That went well (though the S.Ct. did reverse after the firm disbanded).
What the hell are you talking about, 4:48? Are you suggesting that Kent would have to be convicted in a criminal court before articles of impeachment could be passed? That's not the way it works.
4:18, 4:26, 4:31, The allegations pretty clearly spell out the elements for sexual assault and/or assault and battery. Is "start reasoning like lawyers" some secret code for "dumb down the accusations by calling them 'harassment' and ignoring the facts." The rest of us will do just fine reasoning the way we already do. If this is representative of your general work, you should count yourself lucky to have a job.
In this sexual assault case, the woman's attorney's name is really...
Rusty Hardin ????
Lat, tell me you're joking...
4:26 is not cool.
4:54 - I imagine someone would have to actually accuse Kent of sexual assault first before Congress would pass articles of impeachment for that offense.
I don't see the problem with him putting his mouth on her breast and pushing her head towards his crotch.
He's obviously complimenting her breasts and asking for her assistance.
4:58 et al.,
In case you're unaware, crime victims do not have to articulate the legal theories pursuant to which offenders are prosecuted in order for criminal liability to attach. "He tore my shirt open and put his mouth on my breast" is quite sufficient; she doesn't need to cite the section of the Texas Penal Code that Kent's actions violated.
Rusty Hardin
You obviously haven't looked at your trial lawyers of America trading cards recently.
Rusty Hardin was Andersen's lead defense attorney during the criminal prosecution relating to Enron. He was the Texan in a white suit and cowboy boots doing all the straight talking while a bunch of New York stiffs sat around.
Obviously didn't turn out that well for Andersen.
It is noteworthy that a lawyer of Rusty's caliber has gotten involved.
He is also a very nice guy.
Andersen won on appeal... too little too late. Poor Rusty got SCREWED!
Note to self: possible new strategy for clerkship interviews.
His name is Rusty Hardin...too funny for a case about a judge trying to dry hump some clerk. Made my day.
If you were a hiring partner and I admitted to being Hof1L would you:
(1) Hire me b/c im funny
(2) Hire me b/c I'm cute :)
(3) Hire me because I go to Hoftsra?
Hof1L@yahoo.com
Wait, I thought if it was about sex, it shouldn't be impeachable...Am I now wrong on this?
Wanted oral sex =/= Unwanted mouth-boob action
If we impeach some guy everytime hemakes an advance on a clerk or intern we would have no elected representatives.
"Despite the porn star name, Rusty Hardin is a very successful (and feared) plaintiffs' lawyer."
"Despite"? Don't you mean "Because of..."?
I love how half the people who read this decide to make a Rusty Hardin=porn name joke and, despite (or do I mean "because of"?) the fact that ten other people have already done it, they go ahead and do it anyway. Glad to join those ranks.
PS: New Gallion = total douchebag
What does Bill Clinton have to do with this reprehensible behavior on the part of Kent? Am I missing something or is Lat going to ruin his blog by giving us a new right-wing smear every day?
I get smeared enough by CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. I don't need others piling on.
This is just another case of boys will be boys.
The impeachment of Judge Pickering can be used as precedent!
5:46, LMFAO at you. Bill Clinton was not impeached because of "[w]anted oral sex." He was impeached because he perjured himself in a sexual harassment trial. No one suggested that he "harassed" Monica Lewinski. The plaintiff in the case was a state employee who was allegedly brought by a state trooper to Clinton's hotel room. She alleged that the following transpired:
"Mr. Clinton approached me again, saying "I love the way your hair flows down your back" and "I love your curves." While saying these things, Mr. Clinton put his hand on my leg and started sliding his hand toward my pelvic area. I did not consent to him doing this. He also bent down to kiss me on the neck, but I would not let him do so.
I exclaimed, "What are you doing?" and escaped from Mr. Clinton's reach by walking away from him. I was extremely upset and confused ... and I sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door. Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to "kiss it."
I was horrified by this. I jumped up from the couch and told Mr. Clinton that I had to go, saying something to the effect that I had to get back to the registration desk. Mr. Clinton, while fondling his penis, said ... "You are smart. Let's keep this between ourselves."
So, 5:46, are you really saying that these allegations, if true, are different in kind or degree from what Kent did? Was it okay for Clinton to deny the plaintiff a fair trial, and lie to the court in doing so? You are a partisan hack, plain and simple.
Interesting poll results. Now if only the liberal Democrats who are so quick to call for impeachment for the "crime" of sexual harrassment were as unforgiving when it comes to the crime of treason, I would feel a great deal safer.
6:27: You are correct, Lat's comparison with Clinton was somewhat innappropriate. Sexual harrassment, after all, is a far cry from rape.
anyone who claims they didn't want it from billy c is obviously lying and a partisan hack.
hours later, i'm still basking in the glow of firstedness
Judge Kent writes hysterical opinions, it would be sad for those to stop, check out
147 F. Supp. 2d 668, 39 F. Supp. 2d 1008
For the legal geniuses who seem to think this is a impeachable offense, we have something called "precedent" in American law. The precedent set by (at least) one venerated former President and scores of elected public officials establishes that sexual misconduct, no matter how reprehensible, does not amount to an impeachable offense. In addition, precedent establishes that only a handful of offenses (all involving public corruption) committed outside of the courtroom (no, not chambers, the courtroom) will form the basis for an impeachable judicial offense.
7:55 and FedSoc, I agree. The poll results and comments confirm that his website truly is infested with fuzzy-minded liberal hacks. As 9:21 points out, the Clinton precedent will be hard for Congress to ignore given that it was so recent and the sexual misconduct more egregious.
Mr. Precedent, check out the John Pickering impeachment. Gross misconduct inside the courtroom can be grounds for dismissal.
I don't think the Kent / Clinton comparison is political. In both cases, you have (1) a public official with an alleged pattern and practice of sexual harassment, (2) who allegedly wanted oral sex from a subordinate, and (3) who may get impeached over it.
How could you hear the allegations in the Kent case and NOT think of ol' Bill?
All you idiots who think this is just sexual misconduct and not a felony sexual assault need to go back to Crim Law 101. There are at least technical grounds for an impeachment here. From there, the poll is just based on your opinion as to whether the judge should be impeached, and you can't really call someone stupid for their opinion.
As for the one person who cited the Clinton scandal as "more egregious," you might recall that Clinton did not force himself on Monica. I would say that felony sexual assault is a *slightly* worse offense than adultery, but what do I know. Maybe we should start putting people in jail for adultery again, given it is more egregious than a felony?
Stupid question: why is everybody talking about "high crime and misdemeanors" and not "hold their offices during good behaviour"? What about good olde Art. III?
I think Kent should get a pass on this -- he's certainly learned his lesson -- and get back on the bench where he can write more of his hilarious opinions.
See, generally:
Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corporation, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 668 (S.D. Tex. 1991).
Smith v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 943 F.Supp. 782 (S.D. Tex. 1996).
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/obiwan4.shtml
http://www.greenbag.org/kent_scanned.pdf
So says 9:42:
"[Y]ou might recall that Clinton did not force himself on Monica. I would say that felony sexual assault is a *slightly* worse offense than adultery, but what do I know. Maybe we should start putting people in jail for adultery again, given it is more egregious than a felony?"
Clinton was not impeached for "forc[ing] himself of Monica" or for committing adultery. Why is that so hard for you to understand? He was impeached for perjury. He lied to a court at a sexual harrassment trial. He did so in order to prevent the plaintiff in that trial from having a fair day in court. That plaintiff made allegations similar in kind and degree to those alleged against Kent. Clinton allegedly had a trooper bring her to his hotel room, engaged in unwanted touching, whipped it out and told her to "kiss it" AFTER she rebuked his advances, and then reminded her that he knew her boss in an obvious attempt to intimidate her into silence.
Enough of the "Clinton was impeached over a consensual bj from Lewinski" nonsense. That is not what happen and you know it.
Where federal judges have been impeached in the past, it has been for such things as neglect of duty, drunkeness on the bench, convistion of a crime, and perjury.
10:34 - Dude is heavy on the adverbs.
6:16 You are a tool.
I agree we should not compare Kent to Clinton. Kent has at least one more sex assault and a rape to go before he is in Clinton's league.
7:29,
If we're playing the precedent game, how many federal judges in the past have sexually assaulted a staff member and NOT been impeached? Perhaps there's no direct historical precedent for this because most judges aren't complete slimeballs?
THIS THREAD IS AN ALTAR TO SODOMY AND A IRREVERENT SOUNDING BOARD FOR LEFT WING OPERATIVES. TAKE THIS THREAD DOWN IMMEDIATELY. BLOCK ALL IP ADDRESSES OF THOSE WHO HAVE POSTED.
Poor Anonymous 8:27/New Gallion, did I hurt your feelings? Why don't you lecture us on the glories of recycling and low-flow showerheads, douchbag. Everyone enjoys that.
FYI: "To impeach" means "to charge with a crime or misdemeanor." Ergo, the fact that Clinton was not removed from office does not mean that he was not "impeached." He was charged. If you want to get all technical, the poll question here means "should he be charged?" and not "should he be removed from office?" -- because those are two discrete questions.
Wait, I'm confused, was Clinton impeached for lying, or for getting it on with Monica, or for groping that woman in his hotel room? More importantly, was Monica given a cold offer after she spilled her drink on that guy at the bar? Why is nobody talking about this???
Clinton was impeached for perjuring himself in the sexual harassment trial brought by "that woman in the hotel room," not for "getting it on with Monica."
JT says alleged "lawyers" who can't Google must be lazy. What my man Billy C was up for http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/lewinsky/articles.of.impeachment/