Federal Criminal Is Overruled

Idiot federal judge who tossed the NYPD's stop and frisk program is actually not an idiot. She's a criminal. By her own words she knowingly violated federal regulations.

... District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 2 ('A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.')"

Specifically, the court said Judge Scheindlin had "compromised" the appearance of partiality by improperly inviting a stop-and-frisk suit. In a December 21, 2007 hearing on an earlier case, Judge Scheindlin stated: "[I]f you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related."

She also stated that, "[W]hat I am trying to say, I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it [emphasis mine~ sig94], for $65 you can bring that lawsuit." And she concluded by noting, "And as I said before, I would accept it as a related case, which the plaintiff has the power to designate."

That point about a "related" case is crucial because it allowed Judge Scheindlin to grab the stop-and-frisk case for herself, rather than follow the district court's established practice of assigning cases randomly to judges. As the Second Circuit noted on Thursday, two of the attorney groups working on that earlier case helped another defendant file the stop-and-frisk case that Judge Scheindlin accepted as "related" and which she used to find stop-and-frisk illegal.

This is all a remarkable abuse of court practice, and it suggests bias against the NYPD. The Second Circuit also rebuked Judge Scheindlin for "a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court." These also revealed her predisposition to rule against the police.

The bombshell means that the case is remanded to another district court judge, who will implement the stay until the appeals court rules on the merits next year. Given Judge Scheindlin's dubious ruling, we'd expect a reversal on the law. By the way, the Second Circuit panel includes Bill Clinton appointees Jose Cabranes and Barrington Parker, as well as John Walker, a George H.W. Bush appointee. Judge Cabranes is one of the most widely respected on the appellate bench.

I'd say write your congressional representative to demand her impeachment but Congress is useless as hell also.

Story here

The following is the section of federal regulations violated by this criminal on the bench.

CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

But there may be a way to remove a federal judge other than impeachment.

Most everyone assumes that impeachment is the only means of removing federal judges and that the Constitution's grant of good-behavior tenure is an implicit reference to impeachment. This Article challenges that conventional wisdom. Using evidence from England, the colonies, and the revolutionary state constitutions, the Article demonstrates that at the Founding, good-behavior tenure and impeachment had only the most tenuous of relationships. Good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior. There would have to be a trial, the hearing of witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, with misbehavior proved by the party seeking to oust the tenured individual.