LNP Editorial “Time for Eakin to go? ‘John Smith’ emails impossible to defend” opens:
“The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board on Tuesday filed a complaint against state Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin, a West Donegal Township Republican. The complaint says that Eakin ‘failed to conduct himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.’ It says he ‘engaged in conduct that gives the appearance of impropriety.’ The complaint says Eakin ‘failed to demonstrate respect for’ the judicial system of Pennsylvania’s nondiscrimination and equal employment policies. And, further, the conduct board says, that, in sending and receiving emails containing nudity and making fun of people based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or socio-economic status in text, images and videos, ‘Justice Eakin has acted in a manner that detracted from the dignity of his office.’”
LNP does not comment on the defense that the Conduct Board sets forth of itself for not having filed a Complaint after its investigation of Eakin in 2014. The Board claims that material provided to it by a deputy to Attorney General Kathleen Kane had withheld the most offensive e-mails that Eakin had been privy to.
So that raises the intriguing and pivotal question of whether Kane was behind the removal of those e-mails or whether the largely Republican holdovers on her staff had deleted material in its possession to protect Republican Justice Eakin.
This goes to the core of NewsLanc columnist Bill Keisling’s recent accusation of a Republican coup of the Attorney General office.
The LNP editorial goes on to state: “Had these emails been associated with us, we’d be so mortified, we’d slink away in shame, so as to end the need for any further discussion. But shame seems in short supply in Harrisburg.”
It is good to see a Pennsylvania newspaper expressing outrage, albeit but at the fringe of the long time and pervasive corruption throughout the Pennsylvania government, as has been pointed out by reputable national surveys.
On the other hand, LNP’s editorial gives the impression that the Conduct Board was tut tutting Justice Michael Eakins morality. There is a distinction between the constitutional rights to which private individuals are entitled and what is inappropriate for a judge. It isn’t a matter of the judge’s morality; it is a judge’s need to avoid undue familiarity with those who may come before the judge.
(If ever having exchanged ‘dirty’ jokes and soft pornography among close friends were disqualification for office, probably a good portion of the male population over fifty would be ineligible. That is not the Judicial Conduct Board’s complaint. It is the inappropriateness of with whom Eakin was sharing the posts that is the issue.)
Below are excerpts from the actual charges against Eakin from the Complaint filed this week:
“Justice Eaken utilized this Commonwealth –issued computer equipment to end and receive email from a personal, email address [email protected] (the “John Smith” email address).”
Count 1:
“Judges should avoid improprieties and the appearance of impropriety in all their actions.”
Count 2: “Judges should regulate their extra- judicial activities to minimize conflict with their judicial duties.”
Count 3: “Justices and judges shall not…violate any canon of legal or judicial ethics prescribed by the Supreme Court.”
Count 4: “Judge Eakin engaged in conduct so extreme that it brought the judicial office into disrepute.”
Note the Complaints are not attacks on Justice Eakin’s morality, but rather his violation of his duties as a judge according to rules of conduct.
While LNP buries its head in the sand concerning the far more serious issue of who in the Attorney General’s department in 2014 redacted materials to exculpate Eakin, NewsLanc is very eager to get that answer.
It will be an indicator of whether Kane has been a culprit or a victim. From that, much else can be deduced about the charges brought against her.
