To Discipline A Judge

Impeachment Is Not The Only Way

The impeachment of United States District Court Chief Judge Boasberg for the District of Columbia was passed by the U.S. Congress via H.R. 229. Such impeachment now proceeds to the Senate. Since a majority of the House voted in favor for Rep. Brandon Gill’s bill, the articles of impeachment for a federal judge are sent to the Senate, where a trial is held, requiring a two-thirds majority to convict and remove the judge from office. For the United States Senate in its shortsightedness and idiocy to hold a trial brings issues you can only imagine.

Impeaching a judge takes time, during which Judge Boasberg and other judges can continue to challenge executive decisions. Representative Hawley proposed eliminating the ability of courts to issue nationwide injunctions altogether, a shocking proposal which would directly interfere with many court actions, good or bad:

I noticed that the Democrats, just a few months ago, before the election of Donald Trump, were complaining bitterly about Republican-appointed judges issuing nationwide injunctions. So I had to say this. Let’s have a vote,” Hawley said. “They said they wanted to eliminate nationwide injunctions seven months ago. OK. Let’s do it. Let’s now give them the chance to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and let’s vote on it. I think that this ought to be a no-brainer. Let’s stop the abuse. Here’s the thing. We’ve seen this before. You put judges into office. You think they’re going to be good. They drift left. Let’s take away the power of these judges to issue injunctions like this.

The inability of the online right to come up with anything other than impeachment and banning nationwide injunctions conservatives relied on doesn’t exactly inspire awe. Disciplining judges is accessible, and conservative nonprofits like TPUSA and America First Legal can easily file for it. Will they?

Every judge is bound by ethics rules. The American Bar Association has a Model Code of Judicial Conduct as well as Rules like Rule 8.2 governing judicial conduct. Anyone can bring ethics violations to state judiciary committees governing judicial conduct. As the Trump administration moves forward on deportation, judge impartiality will be especially relevant:

To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded. (Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.2)

In 2019, the California Commission on Judicial Performance removed Judge John T. Laettner for misconduct. Such misconduct included:

Much of Judge Laettner’s misconduct reflects a pattern of engaging with attorneys appearing before him in a manner that is governed by his emotions, rather than by the California Code of Judicial Ethics,” the order said. “His desire to have certain attorneys like him and not be upset or ‘mad at him’ about his rulings, and action he has taken when he was angry or upset with them, has, at times, overridden his compliance with the canons of judicial ethics…increased a defendant’s bail without holding a bail hearing with the defendant present, had a substantive conversation with a prosecutor without a public defender being present, and had an improper conversation with a public defender in courthouse hallway in the presence of potential jurors.

Taking Judge Boasberg as an example, the contrast between his treatment of J6 defendants and an FBI attorney who lied about Russian collusion could be looked into. FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith received probation from Judge Boasberg for falsifying evidence to justify the wiretap of American citizens during "Russiagate”. In contrast, Judge Boasberg hardly ever sentenced J6 defendants to probation for petty misdemeanors. If Judge Boasberg had private conversations with ACLU regarding the deportation of illegals (which journalist Julie Kelly alludes to), such conduct may rise to misconduct as seen in the Judge Laettner investigation.