More evidence that Supreme Court should interimly restore Kathleen Kane’s law license

Article on PHILLY.COM: “Supreme Court Justice Eakin calls for porn inquiry to move to disciplinary court.”

“Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin, facing mounting scrutiny for his alleged involvement in an email porn exchange, called for the inquiry to move to the Court of Judicial Discipline.

“Last year, the Judicial Conduct Board cleared Eakin of sending pornographic material, but was again tasked with reviewing the case after Attorney General Kathleen Kane provided 1,500 emails, some of which were linked to the jurist…

“The board’s secrecy, he wrote, “has led to unfortunate and wholly misguided accusations against the integrity of its process, as well as the integrity of the Board’s members and staff. The CJD, however; is not bound by the same strictures and allows a fuller airing of the facts before a dispassionate body.”

If the Judicial Conduct Board white-washed and suppressed evidence against Elkin two years and is an unsuitable venue to hear his case now, the Supreme Court should retroactively disregard the Board’s earlier report on Kane and start its investigation of charges against her anew.

Meanwhile, it should restore her law license until they have a new report from a more responsible body.

Share

8 Comments

  1. Deep and thought provoking is Hon. Eakins statement.

  2. It is pretty obvious the push to suspend her license through the review board was in conspiracy with the GOP in the Senate who need evidence that she is “incompetent” and can’t serve in her office so they could hold their special hearings to remove her from office. When it comes to the “actions” that have been taken against Kane it should be obvious there are no “coincidences” and the Republicans in PA who control the judiciary and legislatures are desperate.

  3. Absolutely! Innocent until proven guilty ! Pa courts are pathetic.

    Newly elected justices need to sit up and do the right thing!

  4. They haven’t proven she leaked anything.

  5. Do you honestly believe a reporter gave up his source voluntarily? This has all the markings of a railroad job. Let the courts decide it. Innocent until proven guilty, that’s the way it works.

  6. This “whistle blowing” was itself a retaliation. The people she targeted had themselves blown the whistle on the AG for failing to prosecute a corruption case, because the accused were of the same political party as the AG.

  7. Good question, could it be that the court was so accustomed to making the rules as they go along as well as misusing the rules to fit agendas without oversight?

  8. We need a new Attorney General at this point. No matter who’s right or wrong.

Comments are closed.