Folks are finding it pretty easy these days to pile on Galveston U.S. District Judge Sam Kent over the recent reprimand that he received from the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit (previous posts here). As regular readers of this blog know, I’m wary of the mobs and simple morality plays that tend to form around such matters, so I was pleased to learn that Bill Dyer had decided to pass along some thoughts on Judge Kent’s case.
I perceive to have been a serious campaign of distortion in other publicity about Judge Kent by people who do, or at least should, know better. They say Congress ought to commence an impeachment investigation ó but they’re not telling you something very important that you ought to know in forming your own opinion on that subject.
Check out the entire insightful post.
The post is long, but I’m not sure it’s insightful. Over several pages, he says: “The judges could have done more to Judge Kent. They didn’t. QED, there’s nothing else to the story.”
Judges have a long history of self-protection. Indeed, it’s banal to say that every profession that self-regulates tend to respond to misconduct only when that misconduct is gross. That the panel did anything at all is prima facie evidence that there is MUCH more to the story.
I also did not find Bedlar’s argument that “Sexual harassment cases are rarely black and white” to be persuasive. According to news accounts, the woman whom Judge Kent allegedly victimized left the room crying and remained hysterical throughout the day. I hardly doubt a, “Hey, toots!” would have caused that reaction.
Now, of course, I am more sympathetic to claims of false allegations than most. So I am not saying he is guilty. But there should be a PUBLIC hearing regarding the matter. When the misconduct of a public official is at issue, it’s not enough for the parties to privately handle the dispute. Every taxpayer has a right to know if one of its servants is abusing the public trust.