Author Topic: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh  (Read 9974 times)

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2021, 06:20:17 am »
Friday, 17th  September   ~Two Thousand & Twenty One
Uncle clarence thomas warns against "destroying our institutions," & defends the Supreme Court
by Celine Castronuovo






Uncle clarence thomas on Thursday warned against "destroying our institutions because they don't give us what we want, when we want it," arguing that the high court must remain independent from political polarization.









Brian W.
Did individual-1 tell you to say that? or was it wifey?



Blue Red Split
Anti-choice Long (phallic toy) Silver clarence thomas is the last person who should warn about somebody else destroying our institutions.


Dennis Krust
Based on how crazed his wife is, it's hard to believe Thomas doesn't make his decisions based on personal political desires and beliefs.


Donald Barefoot
What a disgrace



Jane Dougherty
Sorry, I agree with him. You get a government you deserve.



Albert Calleros
(Associate) Justice clarence thomas ought not to pontificate about 'judicial independence' with respect to the Supreme-(ly Political) Court of the United States.

Your typical justice system. Will stay like this. Top law enforcement across the nation is more concerned with their political appointments and agendas instead of doing the job they are supposed to do; protecting the American citizens. Instead the election was stolen.


Donald Mauntel
Your institution is made up of political appointees. Every one of you were chosen by a president that believed you were the best in forwarding his or his party's political agenda. Therefor, that party made sure to get you through the confirmation process. Conservative and liberal are political views and not judge types. The law is not conservative or liberal and the U.S. Supreme Court is a travesty as is the rest of the justice system.



Dalton carofilis
Its an interesting stance. Problem is i dont really see him walk the walk. If that were the case you would not be able to predict literally every one of his decisions. Not that democrats are any better. Chief Justice seems to be the only one up there that actually listens to the case with no prejudice. That being said i agree with justice thomas just wish he would practice what he preaches



R F
thomas is a politician with a robe.


Dude Really
"thomas has called on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and in a 1992 decision was among the four justices who ruled in favor of doing so."  And he's Catholic. So, what was that he was saying about personal preferences being dangerous?



KURT W. HUFAMAN
thomas as called for the court to b independent from political polarization.  good


the problem is he is part of the political polarization. 


no hearing on the abortion law.  what a ruling for politics



Oh! Darling
Nobody tried to throw the courts under the bus more than individual-1.


louisa
That's really rich!  They should only be defending the laws of the Constitution not interfering with politics which is what they are now doing.  They have become very polarized & political.



Paul Gottehrer
thomas has been on the Supreme Court for 30 years and has voted with the conservative justices everytime. His wife is a right-wing activist. And, he makes news everytime he asks a question during on a case because most all the time he just sits on the bench and says nothing.


dominick monferrato
4 More Supreme Court Justices will Level The playing Field


'Red Dog
And this coming from a person who denials the rights and equal justice to those he feel is less deserving of the law.



P P
clarence thomas is NO where near the intellect and honor of Thurgood Marshall.  I would not hire clarence to be a municipal court judge or even to clean my house.



Rod Moore
Uncle Tom speaks



Computer G0d Dos
thomas , You should be happy that your kind  isn't still picking cotton , working on the farm and living in a shack  on the farm



Armycombat Vet
thomas , your white wife blogged for individual-1 in the open while you were on the court.



Edythe Jones
Okay Stephen from Django



KEC 72
WTF, he's using his position to aid the destruction of our institutions.


Ephraim Calbert
Totally Koch-ed!  They whistle, he heels.


Denise Estrada
Wow.  Coming from a man who inserts his personal beliefs into our judicial review.  Anita Hill Justice Thomas.  Anita Hill.


anthony liberatore
These outliers are just paranoid about the Dems putting more justices on the court. I knew this guy in the seminary He tried to slide by the training regiment because he was black and we didn't  have many black priests - he couldn't cut it.


Paul Grech
This is too much.  This Justice has championed right wing causes. His decisions champion right wing causes ( Citizens United etc.)
He has publicly touted his friendship with rush limbaugh.  His wife has touted extreme right wing causes.  Here on the eve of the reversal of Roe v. Wade he decries the public perception that the Supreme Court is perceived as political.  Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!



ROBERT ALLEN
UNCLE TOM!!!!!!!!!!!


William Wertz
LOL. Coming from the most partisan member of the court.


Stan Harrison
Well, I guess you should have heard the cases during the election instead of cowering out. Go cry in a corner.



Robert Ceman
sir, you are no thurman marshall!



Michaelmas 46
clarence has already done enough of that along  with his wife) himself. He needs to just sit down and shut up.



Julie Gittens
Sorry, but after the reading article, it's clear Justice thomas vote on the current law in Texas regarding abortion was based on his personal and religious beliefs. Remember, Pres. Biden is also a Roman Catholic. Personally, he's against abortion; however, he thinks we should follow US law (Roe v. Wade) about it.


Russell Vezzali
So we have a perverted Supreme Court Justice who is been part of the most extreme radical right wing illegitimate activist court ever, but had nothing to say when mitch mcconnel changed the number of Justices while Democrats were in office then changed the number again later when his party took over the power to appoint again. clarence thomas is a embarrassment and part of there radical agenda. It would be nice to see the Democratic Party play the same game as mcconnell and change the number of Justices, but that's why we call them the spineless Democrats. They never play by the same rules


Daniel Lindner
Literally: Nah!



LOUIS URCIUOLO
thomas talks a good game about not being influenced, but actions speak louder than words. He feigns personal angst that he couldn't impose the stay because of "complexities" in the law but because he goes on to say that doesn't mean there aren't still problems with the law, it is supposed to make denying the stay right because he wants you to believe the false hope he can still see a way that might overturn the Texas law, in the end. The problem is, a stay is meant to prevent harm while a case is being resolved. The only time a stay is not granted is when your mind is basically already made up to let the law stand. Had the stay been granted, nothing would have changed in the interim. Things would continue to go on the same as they had for decades. But the denial of the stay totally upends decades of accepted ground rules causing enormous damage by effectively shutting down legal abortion. Meanwhile, should precedence actually wind up prevailing and the Texas law is somehow eventually struck down and things go back to normal, nothing can undo the damage already done during the time the meritless case was being litigated without the stay. By denying the stay, a mechanism is created by which women's rights can be temporarily suspended arbitrarily, even if their rights are upheld



Bruce Yarwood
thomas's wife is a QAnon supporter.  I wonder if he is also.


Mark Williams
Seems odd  that the conservative judges are on the news defending there decisions.  Those that are the loudest may be hiding something.  Odd that they put out a majority opinion about the Texas law, but wouldn't put their names to it.


Valerie Mitchell
Right then why are you on SCOTUS? How did you avoid sexual assault charges? Still sitn there.


T B
1.  You lies about Anita Hill.  Three witnesses were waiting in the wings to tell near identical stories of their encounters with you.  Biden folded the Senate confirmation hearing's tent the moment you dropped your "high tech lynching b*llSch!t bomb.
2. You failed to recuse from Bush v. Gore even though your wife was employed by the Bush Transition Team while the case was before you. 


You are a disgrace.



Valerie Mitchell
Anita Hill, ring any bells. Christine Blasely ford? Ring any bells


Tony Anderson
We need to find out the root causes of abortions and work on them instead of passing laws to forbid them. If a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, she will find a way to do. She will go to another state, underground clinic, or even do it herself.


The Texas law and the SCOTUS ruling are just pure political partition. Not only they don't solve the problem, they also make it worse. Women in Texas will even go to Mexico to have it done now.


Julie Gittens
Am I allowed to ask judges (state and federal) to put the law before their personal and/or religious beliefs? The US was founded without a religious belief!!



Tony Anderson
No law can stop abortions. We have to find the root causes and work on them. The Catholic Church has over 2000 years since the first Pope, Saint Peter, to solve the problem, but they failed badly.


Prior to Roe v. Wade in 1973, women would just go to underground clinics, or do it themselves. SCOTUS and Texas just endanger the lives of the women who, for whatever reason, need to terminate their pregnancies.



j. barlow
A SCJ blaming the first amendment for the "polarization" of America and not the courts rulings or lack of. A typical right wing hack, blame the press for everything.



Steve Jenkins
The Roberts court has overturned the 65 Voting Rights law. deciding that racism wasn't an issue today.
 That's a lie...


randy coffman
You might like a law but it is a law. To want to overturn Roe shows he is no unbias judge, He wants to go in and undo a 50 year old ruling so home thomas you are unfit for your job



Vernon Engbino
What about the responsibilities of the men? The courts for too long have punished women but nothing regarding the man.


Melia D
People have finally caught on that the right wing SCOTUS, destroyed our institutions.


Michael O
His white wife is his worst example of his hypocrisy


Ben St. Hilaire
Says the guy who has been doing his utmost to destroy institutions for his entire adult life.


Michael Pocost
thomas is one who is DESTROYING THE REPUTATION OF  THE SUPREME COURT!


Heywood J
Uncle thomas has been a GOP shill since he was appointed.


frank Desantis
Thomas should worry about the support his wife gave to individual-1 insurrection party!


Scott S
When folks get real representation for their taxation, then maybe they'll put down their torches, and pitchforks!


Robert Prentice
He needs to take his own advice.


Clifton Emison
That is interesting coming from one of the most partisan judges ever to sit on the bench.  I guess he thinks judges are partisan when they do not agree with his own conservative republican beliefs.


Phoenix Strong
Uncle Tom should not open his mouth to speak. He always voted one way without any deliberations or thinking ~ the gop way. Thurgood Marshall will be rolling in his grave!


phyllis banks
Another man that was accused of sexual abuse that was appointed to the court.


Linda Carlucci
Try as I might, I never got past this so called Catholic with evidence involving a Coke can with a pubic hair on it.  I don't think he deserved the position of Supreme Court Justice.  Anyone else recall Anita Hill?



bronk Farao
just a typical repulsican appointed justice.  say anything that your masters tell you to.  the court is most definitely partisan and they know it  that is why they keep trying to convince  everybody that they aren't  if they were honest there would be no need to say anything


Valerie Mitchell
Anita Hill.



Wesley Adams
Ahhhh, too late dude.
Your job is about to be rendered USELESS.


Mark Williams
Seems odd  that the conservative judges are on the news defending there decisions.  Those that are the loudest may be hiding something.  Odd that they put out a majority opinion about the Texas law, but wouldn't put their names to it.



Michael Rae
so your warning about destroying institutions, if your voting record on the court is any indication sir you should be looking in the mirror and you will see the root cause of that destruction and you have the unmitigated audacity to make a statement like that. in a democracy, you don't always get what you want but you expect to vote and hope your elected officials represent the will of the majority of the people who voted for them but what your party does now justice thomas is when they don't like the outcome or lose elections they cry foul while putting the interest of the few ahead of the majority and then folks like you Mr. thomas expect us to like it by saying were destroying institutions. you already have a job for life so just do your job and save your commentating about institutions and save your oral arguments for you law clerks because I sure don't want to hear anything you have to say justice, thomas



Steve Wood
Rapist and Sexual abusers are sitting on the Supreme Court. What is he talking about ruining our institutions?



Ray B
Should not even hold that position ask Anita Hill.



Troy Turton
when is the last time he didn't vote 100% conservative on anything? He's a lying Dog as always. Just like that new woman is 95% of the time. she shocked me she voted with Dems once or twice. roberts is known for that. Not the rest of the republican judges though. they vote 90 to 95% of the time republican. So talk is cheap when your votes don't back your words. When his lips move, you know he's Lying if he says he isn't 99% partial republican.






1/2
« Last Edit: September 18, 2021, 04:14:02 am by Battle »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2021, 06:21:18 am »
samuel mcCray
the supreme court have already been destroyed. with it n ow being a political instutition only concerned with the wealthy and not .  I  no wisdom for this body it needs to be abolished, or  it was flawed when the constutitions was first amended.


Ricky Duncan
Yeh from the guy who said Corporation were people, while his wife was being paid 700 grand on the Board of Citizens United. Best thing you can do , is  zip it, you are the part of the problem not any solution.


billy langford
simply put: this guy sucks just like the other religious zealots on the court



Cesar Avila
Anyone else feel a little weirded out that Supreme Court Justices get a literal lifetime guaranteed high position of power?


Robert Bowman
"The court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous," Yes, you did clarence.



Karl fees
thomas is a hypocrite  and is a prime example of what is wrong with the court.



Brenda Ford
This is just another tim scott this one just haven't been around individual-1 but another Mitch look alike but both are "UNCLE TOMS", and he can't wait to over turn Roe vs wade, and anything else that come before him he can't wait to vote, and yes I believed Anita then and I believe her now.



Stuart East Van Diest
Anita Hill's stalker is serious about what?



Steve Jenkins
Any other Court would of issued a stay, State laws do not overrule Federal laws, Roe v Wade was a Federal decision.



KURT W. HUFAMAN
thomas is part and parcel in the political polarization of the supreme court.



Robert Ceman
sir, you are no thurgood marshall



ooo ooo
The high court should remain independent from political polarization, hunh? Uh huh. The Supreme Court IS polarized. Always has been.




James Carroll
Then forget the States Rights ideology.


george boyle
What a disgusting man this guy is.  He's spent decades on the court, rubber stamping his religious  beliefs...  He is a disgrace to the rule of law.



J Lewis
He has alot in common with kavanaugh, that's why they don't care about womens.



Garry Todd
He is one of the problems in America and while the ultra rich have led us to the mess were in.


Nasser Ossareh
Dear Justice thomas... I have a hard time recalling your honor expressing any concerns about keeping supreme court out of politics during your "dear leader" presidency... Are you sure you yourself your honor, are not politicizing the institution?



Glenn Koll
That is a funny statement coming from a right wing justice.




ROBERT ALLEN
I'll have a party when he ends...




Bonnie Mitchum
How about the Supreme Court consider upholding Our Constitution instead of destroying our Nation? Voting Rights, BROTHER. VOTING RIGHTS. UPHOLD VOTING RIGHTS. VOTING RIGHTS!




T Lynn
Term limits of 10 years is plenty for these Judges. Also 9 people representing 331.4 million people? Really? Needs more seats. Also a 2/3rds majority vote to override most prior laws and precedents already set in place by prior Supreme courts = in other words, make these conservs and libs work for it, and stop re interpreting old laws based on the current moral make up of the Court itself, and not necessarily the majority opinion of the public at large. Additionally, just a simple majority vote can be instituted for brand new laws brought on by evolving resources needs and tech needs of a growing population. Yes, it's time to evolve past POTUS picks and court packing. Gotta to be a way to balance these people.



Phoenix Strong
This man is useless to our Justice system. His vote is always predictable. It's whatever the gop says.



Janell B
This man didn't say word one when individual-1 shredded our institutions daily.



individual-1 lied and 0ver 600K died
The same clarence thomas who sexually harassed Anita Hill? That guy?



Beto Montemayor
thomas has called on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and in a 1992 decision was among the four justices who ruled in favor of doing so. That's all you need to know about clarence thomas.



Lisa Welcher
His statement is rich "independent from political polarization" coming from a man who has always voted as a strong republican conservative. I don't know one Black person who is proud to have him as a Supreme Court Justice, he is an embarrassment.  I for one will be glad when he is gone.



Kim Longley
Where to begin.... Time to even up the COURT



Kenneth Argo
Precious coming from a justice who openly suggest overturning a ruling with 50 years of precident.



KS
Justice clarence thomas your court decisions led to this moment in history, come on man!



ROBERT ALLEN
Uncle Tom.... dude should resign...


Richard Sears
I don't understand thomas's statement everybody with a brain knows he is a partisan through his voting record.


Yvonne Mitchum
I just really wish he meant any of what he said. He has already said what his agenda is on various laws. Already said that once the Court was stacked the same as he rules that he would change the laws' meaning or overturn them ahead of time. He just waits for the cases so he can do so.


Diann E Glenn
That's rich coming from a justice whose wife cheered on the insurrectionist enthusiastically.


John Hughes
Justice thomas should worry about the destruction of Democracy by the gop










2/2
« Last Edit: September 17, 2021, 11:13:46 am by Battle »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2021, 03:18:08 pm »
Friday, 24th September  ~Two Thousand & Twenty One
Biden pick Florence Pan confirmed as first Asian American woman on D.C. federal court
by Reuters




The U.S. Senate on Thursday confirmed Florence Pan as the first Asian American woman to serve as a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C., filling a seat vacated by now-U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was promoted to the D.C. Circuit.

The 68-30 vote came shortly after the U.S. Senate Judiciary voted to advance five of President Joe Biden’s other judicial picks, including Toby Heytens, the Virginia state solicitor general nominated to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pan, a former federal prosecutor who has served judge on the D.C. Superior Court since 2009, was first nominated to the federal court in 2016 by Democratic President Barack Obama.

But despite a favorable vote from the then-republican controlled Judiciary Committee, she was never confirmed, and when individual-1 took office, he nominated Dabney Freidrich to fill the seat she had been up for.

Biden in March announced he would renominate Pan to fill the seat that would be vacated once Jackson won Senate approval to replace Attorney General Merrick Garland on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which she did in June.

Jackson, who is Black, has been seen as a potential nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court should a vacancy emerge.

The nomination of Pan furthered Biden’s overall promise to bring greater diversity to the federal judiciary.

“The historic nature of Judge Pan’s nomination will help build a federal bench that reflects full diversity,” U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

She is the 14th of Biden’s 43 judicial nominees to win approval, amid a rush by Democrats to shape the judiciary and counter the influence of individual-1’s near-record 234 appointments while they maintain their narrow control of the chamber.






















Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #33 on: December 11, 2021, 04:08:46 pm »
Saturday, 11th  December  Twenty One
Jefferson County judge removed from bench for behavior
by Associated Press




(Montgomery, Alabama) — An Alabama judge who handles domestic relations cases has been removed from office after being accused of inappropriate behavior.

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary on Friday issued the order removing Nakita Blocton from her position as a circuit judge in Jefferson County.

‘I was being a parent’:

Birmingham woman alleges unfair treatment, threats from benched judge.

The panel said Blocton made derogatory comments about staff and other judges and used fake social media accounts to communicate with people in a case.

The court ruled Blocton had demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate behavior and comments as well as a pattern of deception and dishonesty.

Blocton’s attorney, Emory Anthony, told a local news outlet Friday that Blocton could choose to appeal the ruling.























« Last Edit: December 11, 2021, 05:08:06 pm by Battle »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2021, 07:19:13 pm »
Saturday, 11th  December  Twenty One
State board recommends two-year suspension for Cleveland Judge Pinkey Carr
by Peggy Gallek





(CLEVELAND, Ohio)– The fox 8 I-Team learned Cleveland Municipal Judge Pinkey Carr has moved a step closer to being disciplined.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct recommended Friday that Carr be immediately removed as a judge and suspended from the practice of law for two years.

The state supreme court will now review the board’s findings and issue a final decision.

Carr’s attorney is asking for a, “Two-year suspension from the practice of law, fully stayed” meaning she can continue to practice law as long as she has, ‘Full and complete compliance with her mental health regimen” and gets additional hours of continuing legal education in the area of professionalism.

It is not known when the supreme court will rule on the matter.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct’s president Richard Dove wrote a 58-page recommendation, stating Carr, after nine years on the bench, “Has come to regard her courtroom as her private domain.”

The recommendation further stated Carr’s courtroom was more, “Akin to a circus than court of law.”

The judge is accused of several violations, including ignoring a directive in March 2020 to stop holding hearings because of the pandemic.

Officials with the Ohio Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel also accuse Carr of violating multiple rules of professional conduct, including not wearing proper attire on the bench, holding hearings without a prosecutor or defense attorney present, making jokes and berating defendants, and filing fictitious paperwork with the court.

On March 18th, 2020, the fox 8 I-Team asked the judge if she issued warrants for defendants who did not appear and she said she did not.

The I-Team then checked court records and found that she did issue more than 30 warrants.
 
She then told the I-Team she did not intend to issue the warrants.

The state disciplinary attorneys referred to the FOX 8 I-Team interview in their brief, saying Carr, 

“Abused her authority by issuing arrest warrants for unsuspecting defendants who had been instructed not to appear in court. Rather than admit her misdeeds, respondent consented to a FOX 8 News interview and proceeded to calmly and blatantly lie about issuing warrants for people who did not appear in court. In fact, immediately after the interview, respondent issued 20 additional warrants for people who had not appeared."

The I-Team reached out to Carr Friday and she referred us to her attorney. 

We left a message with her attorney, but have not yet heard back.






















Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2021, 11:14:14 pm »
Sunday,  11th  December  Twenty One
Man Spits On A Judge In Court



How many times has anyone ever wanted to attempt this?
















Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2021, 07:57:14 am »
Sunday, 12th  December  ~Two Thousand & Twenty One
The Supreme Court Is All About CONS Only
by Aziz Huq






The most consequential question in American constitutional law today is whether the Supreme Court will abide by its 50-year-old abortion precedents in Roe and Casey.

So it’s striking to come to an abortion-related decision in which Justice Neil Gorsuch takes aim at his liberal colleagues for their “novel plan to overthrow this Court’s precedent.”

This should not instill any hope in pro-choice hearts.

Along with allowing Texas’ restrictive abortion law to stay on the books, Gorsuch’s opinion Friday in Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson shows how the post-John Roberts Court quickly emerging will manage the feat of promoting the rights conservatives favor, while suppressing those that liberals stand behind.

The Texas law has gotten a great deal of attention because of its novel mechanism of enforcement.

By rewarding private citizens with cash if they sue those who helped a woman secure an abortion after just six weeks of pregnancy, the law evades the federal protections of Roe that ensure a right to an abortion through to viability, at around 24 weeks.

But the issue the Supreme Court was addressing last week was different.

They were asked to rule on the right of abortion providers to sue officials in federal court to block enforcement of this law — which meant they were effectively addressing the broader, and very important, national question of which courts have priority in enforcing constitutional rights, state or federal.

With only Uncle Justice thomas dissenting, the Court found that abortion providers could bring a challenge against state licensing officials.

The five most conservative justices, however, ruled that neither state judges nor judicial clerks could be sued.

On first blush, this seems like a win for abortion providers.

Yet there is far less to Jackson than meets the eye.

For instance, the majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch leaves open ways in which potential defendants can shut down a case entirely.

They can first expressly disclaim any intention to enforce the licensing laws, even as the threat of private suit keeps abortion clinics in Texas shuttered.

Alternatively, Justice Gorsuch emphasized that the Texas law S.B. 8 was ambiguous about the licensing officials’ powers — implicitly inviting the licensing-official defendants to seek a declaratory judgment from a state court (with final say on state law) to end the case.

More profoundly, Justice Gorsuch’s opinion is notable for what risks it perceives to the Court’s legitimacy and the rule of law.

Its silence about Texas’ manifest intention to make an end-run around the constitutional right to an abortion speaks volumes: Disregard for federal law is fine, for some.

Instead, Justice Gorsuch harped on at length about the perils of “disregard[ing] the traditional limits on the jurisdiction of federal courts.”

In a fiery dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued S.B.8 “echoes the philosophy of john c. calhoun,” the pro-slavery leader who argued that states could nullify federal laws.

In response, Justice Gorsuch claimed that it is entirely normal for constitutional rights-holders to be shut out from federal court, and left to state courts.

In the short term, it may well be that state courts are a better venue for S.B.8’s challengers in some ways.

On Thursday, indeed, a Texas district court invalidated the private enforcement mechanism of S.B.8 on procedural grounds.

(Texas has other laws that ban not just many surgical abortions, but even medication abortions, and these remain untouched).

In a powerful and extensive opinion, Judge David Peeples held that S.B.8 impermissibly allows anyone to sue regardless of whether they’re harmed; improperly delegates executive power; and imposes unconstitutionally punitive fines that derogate from property rights.

Because Judge Peeples’ ruling was grounded in Texas’ state constitution, it can’t be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court (which has limited authority over state law).

Judge Peeples made it clear, though, that his ruling was in part animated by his fear that blue states would follow Texas’ lead in S.B.8 — and suppress rights to religious freedom and to carry firearms that are favored among conservatives.

His ruling thus left Texas’ abortion ban in place, while disallowing private enforcement of a sort that conservatives might come to regret.

There is much in his intervention, in short, for the conservative Justices to admire.

Further, beyond the context of S.B.8, Justice Gorsuch’s ostentatious judicial modesty is hard to square with his or the Court’s behavior: The conservative Justices are quite selective when shuttering cases out of federal court, and leaving their resolution to state judges.

Take property rights: The Court has recently doubted state courts’ historical ability to set the metes and bounds of property rights.

And it has rejected the longstanding rule that someone claiming that their property has been “taken” by state law must first go to state court to get a conclusive ruling on what state law allowed.

In religious liberty litigation by Christian groups, the Court again shows scant regard for state courts’ views about state law.

In recent religious liberty cases, the conservative Justices have ridden roughshod over state law to reach their favored outcomes.

Judicial deference to state decisions on public health — with literally tens of thousands of lives in the balance — has also been in vanishingly short supply when it comes to religious liberty claims.

Or consider an opinion that Uncle clarence thomas filed a year ago complaining that gun owners’ rights were being disfavored because the Court had refused to review a law that imposed what he described as an “onerous burden” on Second Amendment rights.

That would never happen, he grumbled with abortion rights.

Today, of course, he is the sole Uncle Tom who would completely foreclose all federal-court review of S.B.8.

So much for equal-handed justice.

Indeed, it is only disfavored rights now that get relegated to state court.

When it comes to criminal procedure rights, the Court confines many claimants to state tribunals by refusing to hear either appeals or to allow a collateral challenge in federal court.

And its outright hostility to constitutional tort claims against police violence mean state law is often the only remedy for people whose constitutional rights are violated by police.

When it comes to regulating access to federal court, in other words, the present Supreme Court exercises a largely unfettered and ideologically infused kind of discretion.

It has used this discretion to favor property owners and religious conservatives, while disfavoring criminal defendants.

Abortion providers should not have no illusions that they number among the elect of more favored constitutional litigants.

And, of course, the four conservative Justices that signed on to Justice Gorsuch’s statement in Jackson about respecting precedent all made clear they saw limits to stare decisis earlier this month during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, the case concerning Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Pennies will get you dollars they all chose to “overthrow this Court’s precedent” in Roe in their preliminary votes.

When reading the Court’s opinions these days, in other words, you need to pay attention not just to what is said, but when it is said.










« Last Edit: December 16, 2021, 05:44:16 am by Battle »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2021, 11:31:59 am »
Monday, 13th  December  ~Twenty One
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Over Press Access in Wisconsin: States' Rights Exactly The Way republicans Wanted
by Associated Press






(Washington, DC) — The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a conservative think tank over Governor Tony Evers’ decision to exclude the group’s writers from press briefings.

The justices acted without comment Monday, leaving in place lower court rulings that said the decision is legal.

The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy filed the lawsuit in 2019 alleging that Evers, a Democrat, violated its staffers’ constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of the press and equal access.

scott walker, a republican, had joined in the institute's bid for high-court review.

Evers defeated walker in 2018.

Last year, a federal judge rejected the group's arguments, saying MacIver can still report on Evers without being invited to his press briefings or being on his email distribution list.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld that ruling in April.


























Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2021, 05:54:57 pm »
Monday, 13th December  ~Two Thousand & Twenty One
West Virginia Governor must pay $2.5M for environmental violations
by John Lynch







West Virginia Governor jim justice has lost another court ruling over his coal companies’ environmental violations.

A federal judge in Virginia has ruled Southern Coal Corporation and two dozen other companies must pay $2.5 million.

That’s for in penalties at mine sites in Tennessee.

A joint filing by the U.S. Department of Justice, Alabama and Tennessee says the company violated a 2016 agreement for environment clean up.


The agreement, known as a consent decree, required the Justice companies to pay $900,000 in civil penalties to resolve more than 23,000 water pollution violations.






















Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2021, 08:35:45 pm »
Wednesday, 15th  December   ~Twenty One
A white racist Louisiana judge blames sedatives after video emerged of her and her family using racial slurs
by DeArbea Walker








A Louisiana judge blamed sedatives after a surveillance video surfaced that appears to show her and her family using racial slurs in the aftermath of a burglary attempt.

Lafayette City Court Judge Michelle Odinet gave the excuse to Louisiana's KLFY News 10 on Tuesday:

"I was given a sedative at the time of the video. I have zero recollection of the video and the disturbing language used during it."

A video that appears to show security footage from Odinet's home emerged on social media on Monday.
In the video, people can be heard laughing and giggling as they watch surveillance footage of a burglary attempt.

In the video, a male can be heard saying n!gger twice.

A woman responds and also says n!gger twice.

"Like a roach," she says as she laughs.

In her statement to KLFY, Odinet said her "mental state was fragile" following the alleged burglary.

The Lafayette Police Department confirmed to local media that an attempted burglary of a vehicle happened at Odinet's home at around 2 a.m. on Saturday.

But Lafayette police Sgt. Paul Mouton told KLFY that the suspect — a Black man — did not have a weapon in his possession at the time of his arrest, even though Odinet described the incident as an armed burglary.

A slew of local politicians and civil-rights groups have since spoken out.

The city's mayor-president said he was "disgusted and appalled" by the video, and the Lafayette Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has called on Odinet to resign.




























COMMENTS SECTION



Caocao8888
30 minutes ago
“I ask for your forgiveness.”  I can certainly forgive her…just as soon as she resigns.



Sim ?
5 hours ago
1st, they had the coach earlier this year saying his diabetes made him say the n word & now a judge said her being on sedatives (& having no memory of saying it) caused her to say..... So pathetic!!


BASED GOD OF MAGA TEARS JOURNALISM
40 minutes ago
I remember the basketball announcer using the "muh diabetes made me racist" excuse


Sim ?
7 hours ago
So remember y'all: sedatives & diabetes can make you say r acist things


Mardi Gro
3 hours ago
She got it from her mama


Kenneth Jones
9 hours ago
She embarrassed because she got caught on tape she should be removed in my humble opinion


Cody Russow
6 hours ago
You mean she feels bad for getting caught


Bright Yellow Croissant Roll
2 hours ago
You're my friend now. We are having soft tacos tonight.


George A
28 minutes ago
She's only sorry because the video came out.


Ann Gore
9 hours ago
She shouldn't be dictating the terms. They should just sack her.



B E J
7 hours ago
RESIGN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Victor de Jung
8 hours ago
She looks like she’s one of the people she’s talking about!


Randall Johnson
4 hours ago (edited)
As long as the Supreme Court of Layfette clings to the old, antiquated, archaic laws and constitution,  of Layfette, enacted  over 100 years ago,  That judge will remain in power!

Calling you out all day
7 hours ago
unacceptable! no excuse for that fowl language, she is only sorry because she got caught. If she was genuinely sorry she would resign immediately as a reflection of what the standards of judges should be - she hasn't so she clearly believes in what she said.


RainerSchubert
4 hours ago
They should review all the cases over which she's presided to check for racial bias. This is shocking.



g man
1 hour ago
She's an elected judge that was voted in by the people?   I'm so shocked how did this happen?


C Abney
1 hour ago
“Sedative” she’s trying the ole Roseann Barr  defense lol



Mmapulita 30
4 hours ago
They are laughing and cursing hence she says she was on sedatives….l don’t believe her,that’s what they do we used to it


BASED GOD OF MAGA TEARS JOURNALISM
47 minutes ago
Systemic racism
She needs to step down ASAP! With all her cases involving AA being thrown out.


Infinite B Legend
1 hour ago (edited)
If you can uphold an athlete for his or her actions on and off a field because they are Role Models Then She Has To Be Held To The Full Extent Of The Law she is supposed to be a judge. I'm just saying
« Last Edit: December 16, 2021, 06:49:58 am by Battle »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #40 on: December 25, 2021, 07:27:03 am »
Saturday, 25th  December ~Two Thousand & Twenty One
Louisianna Supreme Court Suspends Odinet
by Andrew Capps




The Supreme Court of Louisiana has formally suspended Lafayette City Court Judge Michelle Odinet in the wake of a racist video recorded at her home over the weekend.

The court issued the order Thursday after Odinet's attorney Dane Ciolino contacted the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, which oversees judicial misconduct, to notify the commission that Odinet intended to take an unpaid leave of absence from the court to consider her path forward.

"This was a joint consent request, so now she is on leave without pay indefinitely," Ciolino said Friday.


The court appointed an ad hoc judge, Retired Opelousas City Court Judge Vanessa Harris, a Black woman, to preside over Odinet's cases while she is suspended.

Harris will serve until February 28th, subject to the completion of any "unfinished business," according to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

She practiced at Harris & Harrislaw firm and served as an assistant district attorney in St. Landry Parish.

She made history in 2009 when she was elected Opelousas City Court judge, becoming the first woman and African American to serve on that bench.

She retired from Opelousas City Court in December 2020.

Odinet faced several calls to resign this week, including from Governor John Bel Edwards, after multiple people were recorded using a racist slur in a video over the weekend following a failed burglary attempt early Saturday morning.

Ciolino said he spoke to Odinet Friday morning and they will consider her options going forward in the coming weeks.

"She certainly understands the issues and is glad that now she can let a judge preside over that division without any issues," he said. 

"She's going to make long-term decisions after she's had a chance after the holidays to meet with me."

Two Black defendants have already filed motions to have Odinet recused from their cases, arguing the video shows Odinet is “prejudiced and bias (sic) against African Americans.”

The court ordered that Odinet be "hereby disqualified from exercising judicial functions, without salary, during the pendency of further proceedings in these matters."

Associate Justice Jefferson Hughes III, of Walker, was the only member of the seven-justice court to dissent to Odinet's suspension.



COMMENTS SECTION


Marchant2
The dissenter who said the judge who made the order needs "hard facts" must not think much of video evidence.


Cynthia Wells
You won't get a more honest assessment of what a person is than when you observe them in their own home with their family.


Myo Ama
All of her cases, as a Judge and as a prosecutor, need to be reviewed for racial bias.


Ron Gee
I foresee a lot of her convictions of POC being appealed or tossed. Same thing is happening with a group of police officers in Southern California who were exchanging racist texts.


Max Sands
All her cases need to be looked at, how many times was she on a "sedative" while listening to a case?


MJ
They really had no choice, every case she's ever ruled on is being reviewed. Can you imagine what happens if in a large majority cases where the only difference is ethnicity she ruled on its found non Whites received a longer or harsher sentence.


binder666
If she'd done the right thing and simply stepped down, then perhaps it wouldn't have come to this.


Commander_Ninja
How many judges are out there who haven't "gotten caught"?


Marsennia Walls
Father God! I just want to again. Let's continue to rid out these demons in sheep's clothing.


Jordan
Jefferson Hughes needs to be brought in to the light as well. People in power like that can’t decide between right and wrong with racial matters like that need to be investigated immediately.


Jason Velez
Now think about how many more judges are just like her that havent been caught yet


zoemayne
What more evidence do you need? She already acknowledged it was her voice.


Phillip Lopez
Her "excuse" was enough to justify her removal .


Pedro Santos
Swift action must be taken to show impartiality to the people she serves; there should be absolutely no compromise!


ethan carter
Finally some swift justice, good call



Kenneth Williams
Judge Odinet might as well step down gracefully because she's going to be removed in the near future. Her stating that she had taken a sedative and remembers nothing, is ridiculous. Her time on the becnh is coming to an end!









Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11167
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: The Judge Who Replaced Brett Kavenaugh
« Reply #41 on: December 26, 2021, 03:47:46 pm »
Sunday, 26th December  ~Two Thousand & Twenty One
Robed in secrecy: How judges accused of misconduct can dodge public scrutiny
by Erik Ortiz and Jean Lee





When litigants angered Michael F. McGuire, the county judge in New York state’s Catskills region, he might hit them with “judicial contempt” and order them handcuffed, or in extreme cases, jailed for 30 days.

McGuire, elected in Sullivan County in 2011, did it on several occasions over the years without warning: to a man who asked the judge to recuse himself because the man said McGuire knew his son; to a mother who had an outburst when she felt ridiculed by the judge; and to a grandmother who contested turning over her grandson to his allegedly abusive father.

That wasn’t his only concerning behavior, according to an ethics complaint in 2018 filed by a state watchdog agency, which accused McGuire of berating court staff; making “undignified” comments, such as suggesting people in his court would date a “drug dealer” or a “slut”; presiding over cases in which his impartiality could be called into question; and representing family members and friends in personal cases.

The watchdog, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, said he “lacked candor” during its investigation.

For his pattern of “serious” judicial lapses, a state appeals court agreed last year that McGuire — who earned a salary of $210,161 a year — be removed from the bench, the harshest sanction a judge can face.

The public, however, had only learned about the ethics charges months before, in March 2020, more than a year and a half after McGuire was first served with the ethics complaint and when the appeals court said he had been notified of the commission’s unanimous recommendation to have him punished.

McGuire ended up resigning in May 2020, but with another job already lined up — as Sullivan County’s head attorney, a position that he currently holds.

McGuire did not respond to requests for comment.

In his resignation letter last year, he wrote that “I am quite proud of our achievements” while on the bench and “deeply regret the issues that brought me before this Court.”

Joseph LaPiana, who came before McGuire in a family court case last year and is unable to see his 1-year-old daughter as a result, said that “judges work for the public — we should know if they are being investigated for any misconduct.”

But if McGuire’s misconduct violations had happened in a neighboring state like New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Vermont, the public would have been alerted earlier — at the outset of the filing of ethics charges.

That difference in when the public is allowed to know about allegations against judges can differ broadly among states, with some allowing judges to go months or years before even credible complaints are in the open.

With more than 100 million cases filed in local and state courts every year, and judges exerting near-absolute power in deciding who wins custody of children to who can get married to whether a person goes to jail, the public’s ability to scrutinize judicial conduct is crucial for transparency’s sake, and deserves as much attention as recent calls for policing and prosecutorial overhauls, judicial ethics experts argue.

Judicial misconduct “undermines confidence in our justice system,” said Susan Saab Fortney, the director of the Program for the Advancement of Legal Ethics at Texas A&M University School of Law.

Misconduct findings are a rare outcome in the judicial complaint process.

Legal ethics experts say the minuscule share of judges punished every year isn’t necessarily indicative that all is well in the judiciary, but suggests a lack of accountability.

Each state has a form of a judicial conduct commission to which the public can file misconduct allegations against judges.
 
Generally, it’s up to that body, which can be made up of fellow judges, lawyers and laypeople, to determine if a complaint violates a state’s code of judicial conduct — guidelines for judges to act with independence, integrity and impartiality.


A judge’s conduct inside of a courtroom as well as outside, including on social media, can be subject to discipline.

A review by NBC News of various states’ judicial conduct commission data from 2016 to 2020 indicates thousands of complaints are filed across the United States annually, but about 1 percent of them result in judges being publicly disciplined or stepping down after an investigation is opened.

While these commissions maintain that most complaints are frivolous — for instance, a litigant is merely disgruntled over how a judge ruled — for a state to typically record zero public sanctions against judges sounds incredulous, said Robert Tembeckjian, the administrator and counsel of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

“It’s highly unlikely that any state would have a judiciary that is so above reproach that year after year no one gets disciplined,” Tembeckjian said.

“Even in places like New York, where we have very sophisticated judicial education programs, there are numerous cases every year.”

New York’s commission, which oversees about 3,500 state and local judges, has received upward of 2,000 complaints annually in the past five years, and each year, the state has sanctioned a judge or had a resignation for misconduct in one to two dozen cases.

Other large states, such as California and Texas, sanction multiple judges every year.

The level of transparency surrounding misconduct cases varies by state.

Some that have reported no or few judges publicly sanctioned in recent years, such as Iowa, Mississippi, South Dakota and Wyoming, don’t make cases public until the court or panel that decides discipline gets involved.

And in three states — Delaware, Hawaii and North Carolina — misconduct cases are only made public in the final stage of an investigation when a judge is to be punished.

In about two-thirds of states, however, the public can learn much sooner, such as when a judicial conduct commission first charges a judge with misconduct or when the judge responds to the allegations.

States where information is kept under wraps argue that confidentiality is necessary for as long as possible to protect judges should they ultimately be cleared of wrongdoing.

But it turns out that in some cases, depending on the type of transgression, judges can be privately admonished by other judges or sent warning letters, meant to jolt the offending judge into correcting their behavior.

NBC News found many states opt to reprimand judges privately more often than publicly.

For instance, Pennsylvania filed formal charges against judges 17 times from 2016 to 2020, but issued private letters of warning or reprimand 172 times in that period.

A sweeping Reuters analysis in 2020 on judicial misconduct that examined thousands of discipline cases over a dozen years determined 9 out of 10 sanctioned judges were allowed to return to the bench.

“We have to recognize that oftentimes we have judges judging judges, and they’re ultimately in control and judging their own,” Charles Gardner Geyh, an Indiana University law professor who studies judicial conduct, said.

Tembeckjian believes that states, including New York, should be as transparent as possible once there’s sufficient evidence to back up allegations against a judge, similar to how grand jury investigations are made public when an indictment is unsealed.

Tembeckjian said he’d like to see his judicial conduct commission have the authority to suspend a judge during an investigation, like other states’ commissions can do, and continue investigating a case even after a judge resigns.

Such changes, however, would require the approval of the New York Legislature.

Ultimately, ensuring that judges are being rightfully held accountable is essential since guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court allows them to be largely immune from lawsuits for acts done in their official capacity, Tembeckjian said.

“If there’s no sense that you can get a fair shake by going into a court of law and have confidence that the judge is going to be neutral and fair and apply the law honestly and responsibly, it’s ultimately going to lead to anarchy,” he added.

“Then, why not just settle our disputes in the streets rather than a court of law?”

Efforts are underway to enact meaningful judicial reforms at various levels.

On December 1st, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed bipartisan legislation aimed at requiring federal judges to report their financial holdings in response to a Wall Street Journal investigation that found 131 federal judges had broken the law and violated judicial ethics by hearing cases in which they had a financial interest.

A similar bipartisan Senate bill is pending.

On the state side, the Supreme Court of Louisiana last month expanded its rules against errant judges when it tacked financial burdens onto the disciplinary process.

Not only can judges be made to pay for the cost of investigations if discipline is recommended, but they can be ordered to repay the cost of installing a replacement judge.

And if a judge decides to retire or resign before a formal disciplinary process concludes, they can still be required to pay investigatory costs.

The state’s chief justice, John Weimer, said in a statement that the updated rules ensure that even retiring judges are “held accountable” and Louisiana taxpayers aren’t on the hook for costs, which in recent investigations have been about $2,000 to $3,000.

About a dozen other states, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and South Dakota, have similar cost recovery rules or impose fines on judges, according to the Center for Judicial Ethics at the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the judiciary.

Marni Bryson, a judge in Palm Beach County, Florida, faces a public reprimand, an unpaid suspension for 10 days and a fine of $37,500 after the state judicial conduct commission said she was excessively absent from her duties over a four-year period, records show.

In New Hampshire, former Circuit Court Judge Julie Introcaso was ordered to pay her investigation’s cost, almost $75,000.

Introcaso pleaded guilty last month to two counts of tampering with public records and submitting false statements in connection to a child custody case in which she was friends with a lawyer.

Janine Geske, a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in the 1990s, said she’d like to see her state implement similar penalties, which might “encourage judges to take responsibility early on” if their behavioral violations are tethered to their finances.

Another option, Geyh said, is to make the payout of a judge’s pension contractually contingent on good behavior.

Ethics experts say citizen judicial watchdog programs known as court watchers could be effective, but it’s also incumbent upon other courtroom staff and officials who witness a judge’s poor conduct, particularly lawyers, to speak up.

They may be reticent to file complaints, however, because they’re afraid of retaliation if a judge learns they were behind the allegations, Fortney, the legal ethics expert at Texas A&M, said.

“A large percentage of states require that the complaining party be identified,” she added.

“This clearly chills reporting.”

The state’s chief justice, John Weimer, said in a statement that the updated rules ensure that even retiring judges are “held accountable” and Louisiana taxpayers aren’t on the hook for costs, which in recent investigations have been about $2,000 to $3,000.

About a dozen other states, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and South Dakota, have similar cost recovery rules or impose fines on judges, according to the Center for Judicial Ethics at the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the judiciary.

Marni Bryson, a judge in Palm Beach County, Florida, faces a public reprimand, an unpaid suspension for 10 days and a fine of $37,500 after the state judicial conduct commission said she was excessively absent from her duties over a four-year period, records show.

In New Hampshire, former Circuit Court Judge Julie Introcaso was ordered to pay her investigation’s cost, almost $75,000.

Introcaso pleaded guilty last month to two counts of tampering with public records and submitting false statements in connection to a child custody case in which she was friends with a lawyer.

Janine Geske, a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in the 1990s, said she’d like to see her state implement similar penalties, which might “encourage judges to take responsibility early on” if their behavioral violations are tethered to their finances.

Another option, Geyh said, is to make the payout of a judge’s pension contractually contingent on good behavior.

Ethics experts say citizen judicial watchdog programs known as court watchers could be effective, but it’s also incumbent upon other courtroom staff and officials who witness a judge’s poor conduct, particularly lawyers, to speak up.

They may be reticent to file complaints, however, because they’re afraid of retaliation if a judge learns they were behind the allegations, Fortney, the legal ethics expert at Texas A&M, said.

“A large percentage of states require that the complaining party be identified,” she added.

“This clearly chills reporting.”

But there have been cases where lawyers and court staff aren’t afraid to stand up to a jurist.

Ohio’s highest court last month suspended a 19-year municipal court judge, Mark Repp, for one year without pay after prosecutors in Seneca County relayed how he had ordered a 20-year-old woman who was sitting quietly in the back of his courtroom to watch her boyfriend’s hearing get drug tested.

When she refused, he sentenced her to 10 days in jail.


An investigation found that the woman was forced to take pregnancy tests and undergo full-body scans for contraband, although none was detected.

And while Repp assumed the woman was under the influence of narcotics, there was no evidence indicating she was, and she had never been charged with drug-related offenses.

In a recent interview, Repp told NBC News that he has been concerned by the growing rate of overdose deaths in his community, and, in dealing with thousands of cases before him each year, he must “come up with some kind of decision that follows the law and also is appropriate under the circumstances.”

“I knew what I did was wrong,” Repp said.

“I’ll try to make amends on that, and I have a whole year to reflect and contemplate my actions.”

But it wasn’t the only time Repp, who is up for re-election in 2025, has faced criticism.

“Imagine someone sitting in court for the first time, and now they think it’s what the judicial system is like,” said John Kahler II, a lawyer who once accused the judge of being biased against a client and unsuccessfully tried to get him disqualified from the case.

One woman who appeared before Repp in August did file a complaint to say he labeled her a “known meth user” in open court, which she wrote made her feel “very embarrassed by Repp’s conduct and false accusations.”

Repp said the complaint process in Ohio is a “good one” because the public does learn about judges accused of misconduct early on.

But Ana Petro, who was in Repp’s court for a traffic violation this year, doesn’t believe his suspension can remedy how he made her and others feel: worthless.

A reckoning throughout the judiciary is needed, she said.

“I understand it’s not a judge’s job to be nice, but when he’s abusing his power to be a judge, that’s when I have a problem,” Petro said.

“And I don’t trust any judge at all because of him.”