Legal Ethics, Sex, State Judges

Tearful State Supreme Court Justice Apologizes For 'Porngate' Emails

Justice Michael Eakin is really sorry about his offensive emails. Should that be good enough?

By  
on

The ongoing “Porngate” affair in Pennsylvania drew some tears on Monday, as Justice Michael Eakin cried before the judicial ethics court, explaining how sorry he was that he and his buddies exchanged these lewd pictures and (according to the Attorney General) jokes about minorities over email on government time.

For those who haven’t followed the Porngate saga, the Pennsylvania AG’s office found more offensive emails on its servers than Larry Flynt’s, and a chunk of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court routinely swapped off-color messages with them. Justice Eakin is trying to avoid becoming the second Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice kicked to the curb over his tawdry email practices after Justice Seamus McCaffrey earned a suspension from his colleagues and subsequently resigned. The emails came to light when Pennsylvania’s Not-So-Much-An-Attorney General Kathleen Kane released the emails gathered as part of a probe into why the AG’s office sat on its hands in the face of mounting Jerry Sandusky allegations.

But back to Justice Eakin’s predicament:

Of the emails, he said, “It’s not criminal, it has nothing to do with my performance on the job.”

****

“Perhaps my demeanor was ‘one of the boys,'” he told the court. “But what I sent was to people who were ‘one of the boys.’ It was in the locker room.”

Right. And all those things I said about the immigrants were just “in the Klan meeting.” Not that those are necessarily equivalent, but that’s how stupid the “I was in a ‘Be an Asshole to People Zone'” excuse comes across. He also argues that he merely received rather than sent the worst of the emails found in the probe, a potentially fair argument that he blows to hell when he describes himself as “in the locker room.” He’s not a passive recipient, he’s saying he’s part of a culture. An approving audience fuels the speaker, after all.

So what does this all mean? The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board argues that Justice Eakin should be removed from office:

The state Court of Judicial Discipline held a hearing Monday in Easton on whether to suspend Eakin while he awaits a decision by the state Judicial Conduct Board, which earlier this month charged Eakin with misconduct for sending emails containing sexually explicit and other offensive content. The board said Eakin had “engaged in conduct so extreme that it brought the judicial office into disrepute.”

In addition to receiving numerous emails laden with pornographic, misogynist, racist, and homophobic content, Eakin relayed a joke about a battered woman, vowed to close his “titty deficit” by patronizing strip clubs with fellow officers of the court, and nauseatingly imagined getting his female aides to share rooms with them during a planned golf outing in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Sponsored

I’ve got to be honest, I’m not sure I agree. Not that I condone Justice Eakin’s behavior. As I’ve written in the past:

And based on Kane’s allegations, he may have used his email to share similarly retrograde views of other groups in the form of “humor” invariably justified because everyone should “relax and take a joke” because the old white dudes who are never the butt of any negative stereotypes think these things are just gangbusters. Maybe if we’re lucky this affair might bring out the free speech fundies branding Kane as a traitor to the Constitution for daring to suggest that free speech is something other than the right to be a dick at all times. It’s true — Americans are entitled to write all sorts of offensive things that would nonetheless make them terribly unfit jurists. Pointing that out isn’t a civil liberties violation, it’s acting like a grown up.

And if this were Justice Thomas’s inbox — to pick a justice entirely at random — I’d be more inclined to view this as a matter for intervention to the extent these messages undermine the appearance of impartiality for a court charged with passing judgment on the rights of women and minorities. But in a system that elects judges, isn’t this really a political question? Voters fancy themselves informed enough to put the guy in there, why should they be left out of the equation when it comes to kicking him out?[1] The voters of Pennsylvania have seen what Justice Eakin thinks behind closed doors, and now it’s their job to toss him out or pressure their elected officials to impeach him. Seems only fair.

The Inquirer notes that the Supreme Court is notoriously bad at disciplining itself — perhaps the voters should stop abdicating that job.

Sponsored


[1] At least for a matter like this that speaks to judicial temperament but not concrete incidences of biased rulings.

Eakin tearfully apologizes for offensive emails [Philadelphia Inquirer]
Emotional Justice Eakin testifies about reputation, media circus [How Appealing]
“Don’t let Eakin judge” [How Appealing]
Kane releases offensive emails [Philadelphia Inquirer]
READ: Emails and documents released in PA Supreme Court email scandal [The Morning Call]

Earlier: A Supreme Court Justice’s Offensive, Racy Emails
Court Kicks Supreme Court Justice To Curb In ‘Porngate’ Decision
‘No Law License? No Problem!’ Says Embattled State Attorney General
Penn Attorney General Dupes The Press

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,