A little surprised about both Kozinski and Peplowski.
The judge is a lifetime federal appointee, much of what he's accused of appears to be verbal, and(unlike the other recent cases in the news) no attempts at unwanted physical contact, and nothing about demoting, discharging or disciplining someone on bogus grounds based on them rejecting his advances. Plus, he was completely dismissive, and acted unconcerned about the whole matter.The way it was reported was that he asked law clerks what they thought of pornography, including porn purportedly on his computer screen.
Agreed, that in and of itself is intolerable, but nothing compared to what these other high profile individuals were accused of, and a lot of it may be difficult to prove at this late date.
But there may be a couple things going on here to help explain it all. First, perhaps there are allegations which may emerge which are a lot more serious than what has been reported thus far. Secondly, he may figure he's 67, has served for years, and that his legacy will be further tainted if he remains a distraction. Every time a case involves employment related behavior, wrongful discharge, discrimination and harassment in the work place, or anything involving unequal or unfair treatment of women, it will give rise to the argument as to whether he should preside over the matter.
As to Peplowski, I always found him a pleasure to work with in a case.
After the '06 arrest, I was certain that he would become a lot more circumspect, discreet, and appropriate, and not choose to address his intimate needs in a very public setting and/or in exchange for payment.
So, if he is in fact guilty of these actions, then I was very wrong.
Many raise the argument that why should careers or reputations(both of which take years of hard work and sacrifice to build)be immediately obliterated because someone engaged a prostitute. But as long as it remains illegal, everyone is on full notice that, fair or otherwise, their career will be at stake. Same thing with pot smoking prior to the recent changes. No matter how innocuous many instances of usage are argued to be(and may in fact be) as long as it remained illegal, careers remained in jeopardy.
To:9:00. Yes, the initial reports just included verbal statements by the judge, but as the resignation article indicates, now women are emerging with assertions of improper physical contact.
So, it was only going to get more numerous, more specific, and presumably a lot more difficult to defend.
His apology was the typical non-apology: essentially that he has a broad sense of humor and is a bit candid in joking to law clerks of both genders, that he intended no harm, and apologizes if his actions were misinterpreted.
But perhaps his lawyers were concerned with shielding him from potential liability, as perhaps there is no judicial immunity for these types of purported intentional acts that have nothing to do with the parameters of his official duties.Others who know the answer can weigh in on that.
But, despite the statement, the judge himself may realize he went way too far and was inappropriate. Hopefully, that is the case. That would require humility and insight, and personal accountability. Not all judges have those traits.
Guest
Anonymous
December 18, 2017 5:04 pm
Kozinksi's retirement came about a months too late for Luis Ayon.
Guest
Anonymous
December 18, 2017 5:11 pm
Now Trump can replace Kozinski with an even worse buffoon
She is trying to get on the Supreme. Her name starts with an E
Guest
Anonymous
December 18, 2017 5:37 pm
While people can say what a great environment it is for conservative jurists, a year in which both Posner and Kozinski were run out on rails belies that assertion.
I skimmed that and it sounds like he argued with Wood, but it doesn't say she pushed him out. Arguing with colleagues at work isn't the same as pushing someone out. Not even close. It doesn't even make sense that she could push him out, unless she's privy to some high crime or misdemeanor that didn't make that article. I'm happy Posner and Kozinski are gone. Both were arrogant pricks.
I dislike Matt Damon (and Al Franken, and Alex Kozinski) as much as the next person, but do you disagree that rape is more morally reprehensible than sexually insensitive jokes? Aren't Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein more culpable than Franken or Kozinski? Isn't a murderer more culpable than someone that commits battery? I personally love when Matt Damon gets caught in the net of these witch hunts, but I really don't get the outrage here. Cosby and Weinstein belong in jail. Franken and Kozinski should have their names publicly tarnished and should face some punishment that falls well short of jail or being forced out of office.
Guest
Anonymous
December 18, 2017 6:31 pm
That one Federal nominee, Petersen, in addition to never having tried a case or conducted a deposition, was absolutely shocking as to what basics he did not know. Even more shocking than what he did not know, was his completely inarticulate approach,and inability to think on his feet, and complete inability to reason things out.
He was asked about some abstention doctrine. He replied something like "um…um…you know…I'm not sure I know what that involves…uh…but I can look into it…"
Now, assuming he knows that they are not asking him about abstention in the context of abstaining from sex(but, he seems like such a moron that I shouldn't assume anything),it should have been incredibly easy to fudge through the answer and make it seem like he at least kind of knows what the doctrine is about.
He knows it's a federal appointment, and he knows this abstention doctrine is being raised in context of something he may encounter it once on the federal bench. So, even if he doesn't know this particular doctrine, he could have, and should have said something like: "That doctrine concerns the question of when it is appropriate for the federal court to allow a state court to resolve certain claims rather than the federal court."
That may not be a particularly accurate statement, but it's not a startling inaccurate statement either as all federal abstention case generally involve a dispute as to whether a state court or federal court will adjudicate a particular cause of action.
And the questioner only was allotted about 5 minutes, is not an attorney, so he would not have followed that answer up by getting into the weeds on the issue, but would have moved to his next question.
So, the answer that he doesn't know the doctrine was an honest response. But the fact he couldn't reason things out, and can't or won't even make some general remarks about abstention, demonstrates that he is a stammering, inarticulate buffoon, wants to be a federal judge yet knows less about federal law than a first year law student who completed civ.pro., is completely unable to respond to anything he may hear during oral arguments, etc.
If he was asked about the International Shoe Case, and its jurisdictional implications, he would have responded: "Uh…uh.. I haven't been paying too much attention to shoes lately. I'll check my shoes at home…and uh…see if they have a rubber sole…or…uh.. whether it's…uh…some other substance." Moron!
Of course, worst of worst, a first year law student who completed Civ. Pro would know what a Motion In Limine is, and if not, they would know by the time they take Evidence. When he didn't know, and they simplified the question to ask if he knew what a Motion To Exclude was, the cretin still insisted that he would have to get back to them on that one as it wasn't readily at his finger tips.
Come on, let's be honest. Who actually knew what a motion in limine was when they graduated law school? I will admit that I did not. It acutally never came up in the context of any class. Evidence, nope. Civ Pro, nope. I learned the rules, not how you apply them when you are a real life lawyer.
I did not know what a MIL was in law school. I learned what one was long before I was qualified to argue one, however, let alone judge one. I did know what Daubert was, as well as the various abstention doctrines, before I graduated law school. This guy's nomination was an absolute joke.
Came up in my Civ. Pro. Came up in my Evidence course. Came up in my Trial Advocacy I. Came up in my Trial Advocacy II. Certainly knew it before I had reached 10 years practicing. And even if it had not, go through a Prep Session with attorneys to get you ready for a Senate hearing. Ask Andy Gordon or Jennifer Dorsey what they do to you to get you ready. Incompetence.
He had to. It's preposterous to keep his name in for consideration after the one senator established that he was an utter moron who knew less then nothing, and the other senator essentially created the lingering impression the appointee was hopelessly corrupt.
This second senator established that it is illegal for employers to compel their employees to support or contribute to specific candidates or causes. The nominee eventually conceded that point. The senator then asked him why he engages in selective prosecution, that being that when the employer is accused of compelling employees to support or contribute to a republican candidate, he almost never investigates, while if the employer is accused of compelling employees to contribute to or support a democrat, he almost always commences an investigation.
He merely made the quite weak observation that some of those matters may be pending so he really can't comment. Fair enough. But he should have expressed righteous indignation and stated that although he can't comment on individual pending matters, that party politics never plays a role in these decisions, etc.
Even if he can't remark on individual matters, his utter failure to address the broader, and far more important issue, of selective politically motivated prosecutorial decisions, essentially amounted to his failure to deny or challenge the undercurrent of the question–which was, in so many words, "admit you are politically corrupt and a party tool."
Guest
Anonymous
December 18, 2017 6:37 pm
What is "sexual misconduct" exactly? Is this an ill defined "void for vagueness" charge or concept. What is happening to due process? Charges being subject to cross examination and review. Some of the misconduct allegations are nothing more than comments which the listener found offensive but never said anything till decades later. How does anyone defend themselves on such allegations in the media.
They can't. There is no due process in the court of public opinion. I agree that most of these men have done some pretty sleazy stuff. But some of it occurred many years ago and I have trouble with somebody losing their job over accusations of something that happened in the 80's or 90's with no indication that it has happened since. People change. Memories change over time as well.
I'm not trying to defend these guys for what they did, but I think there needs to be some discretion as to whether the punishment fits the crime.
Generally agreed. There are some things that are wrong no matter when they took place, but I can also say that the standards of the last fifteen years or so are different than the fifteen years prior to that in terms of office talk, etc. back in the late 80's and through the 90's it was a lot more common to have drinks at lunch, which is something that doesn't happen very often anymore. Led to a lot of talk and other things that were pretty normal for the time but would not be tolerated today.
A little surprised about both Kozinski and Peplowski.
The judge is a lifetime federal appointee, much of what he's accused of appears to be verbal, and(unlike the other recent cases in the news) no attempts at unwanted physical contact, and nothing about demoting, discharging or disciplining someone on bogus grounds based on them rejecting his advances. Plus, he was completely dismissive, and acted unconcerned about the whole matter.The way it was reported was that he asked law clerks what they thought of pornography, including porn purportedly on his computer screen.
Agreed, that in and of itself is intolerable, but nothing compared to what these other high profile individuals were accused of, and a lot of it may be difficult to prove at this late date.
But there may be a couple things going on here to help explain it all. First, perhaps there are allegations which may emerge which are a lot more serious than what has been reported thus far. Secondly, he may figure he's 67, has served for years, and that his legacy will be further tainted if he remains a distraction. Every time a case involves employment related behavior, wrongful discharge, discrimination and harassment in the work place, or anything involving unequal or unfair treatment of women, it will give rise to the argument as to whether he should preside over the matter.
As to Peplowski, I always found him a pleasure to work with in a case.
After the '06 arrest, I was certain that he would become a lot more circumspect, discreet, and appropriate, and not choose to address his intimate needs in a very public setting and/or in exchange for payment.
So, if he is in fact guilty of these actions, then I was very wrong.
Many raise the argument that why should careers or reputations(both of which take years of hard work and sacrifice to build)be immediately obliterated because someone engaged a prostitute. But as long as it remains illegal, everyone is on full notice that, fair or otherwise, their career will be at stake. Same thing with pot smoking prior to the recent changes. No matter how innocuous many instances of usage are argued to be(and may in fact be) as long as it remained illegal, careers remained in jeopardy.
To:9:00. Yes, the initial reports just included verbal statements by the judge, but as the resignation article indicates, now women are emerging with assertions of improper physical contact.
So, it was only going to get more numerous, more specific, and presumably a lot more difficult to defend.
His apology was the typical non-apology: essentially that he has a broad sense of humor and is a bit candid in joking to law clerks of both genders, that he intended no harm, and apologizes if his actions were misinterpreted.
But perhaps his lawyers were concerned with shielding him from potential liability, as perhaps there is no judicial immunity for these types of purported intentional acts that have nothing to do with the parameters of his official duties.Others who know the answer can weigh in on that.
But, despite the statement, the judge himself may realize he went way too far and was inappropriate. Hopefully, that is the case. That would require humility and insight, and personal accountability. Not all judges have those traits.
Kozinksi's retirement came about a months too late for Luis Ayon.
Now Trump can replace Kozinski with an even worse buffoon
There is an even worse buffoon? When will he/she serve on the NSC?
Or is that person already on the NSC?
She is trying to get on the Supreme. Her name starts with an E
While people can say what a great environment it is for conservative jurists, a year in which both Posner and Kozinski were run out on rails belies that assertion.
I don't know what "conservative" is supposed to mean anymore.
Posner quit on his own. Said he was mad that pro se folks didn't get more help.
Posner was pushed off the bench by his colleagues (namely Chief Judge Diane Wood) on the Seventh Circuit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/21/richard-posners-bats-crazy-new-book/?utm_term=.ede8d0249be1
I skimmed that and it sounds like he argued with Wood, but it doesn't say she pushed him out. Arguing with colleagues at work isn't the same as pushing someone out. Not even close. It doesn't even make sense that she could push him out, unless she's privy to some high crime or misdemeanor that didn't make that article. I'm happy Posner and Kozinski are gone. Both were arrogant pricks.
The Kozinski apologists are cobbling up another version of Matt Damon's "continuum" of misconduct. In this view if it's not rape, I guess it's excusable and pardonable. Well, karma caught up to arrogance.
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/matt-damon-sexual-harassment-harvey-weinstein-al-franken-1201907979/
I dislike Matt Damon (and Al Franken, and Alex Kozinski) as much as the next person, but do you disagree that rape is more morally reprehensible than sexually insensitive jokes? Aren't Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein more culpable than Franken or Kozinski? Isn't a murderer more culpable than someone that commits battery? I personally love when Matt Damon gets caught in the net of these witch hunts, but I really don't get the outrage here. Cosby and Weinstein belong in jail. Franken and Kozinski should have their names publicly tarnished and should face some punishment that falls well short of jail or being forced out of office.
That one Federal nominee, Petersen, in addition to never having tried a case or conducted a deposition, was absolutely shocking as to what basics he did not know. Even more shocking than what he did not know, was his completely inarticulate approach,and inability to think on his feet, and complete inability to reason things out.
He was asked about some abstention doctrine. He replied something like "um…um…you know…I'm not sure I know what that involves…uh…but I can look into it…"
Now, assuming he knows that they are not asking him about abstention in the context of abstaining from sex(but, he seems like such a moron that I shouldn't assume anything),it should have been incredibly easy to fudge through the answer and make it seem like he at least kind of knows what the doctrine is about.
He knows it's a federal appointment, and he knows this abstention doctrine is being raised in context of something he may encounter it once on the federal bench. So, even if he doesn't know this particular doctrine, he could have, and should have said something like: "That doctrine concerns the question of when it is appropriate for the federal court to allow a state court to resolve certain claims rather than the federal court."
That may not be a particularly accurate statement, but it's not a startling inaccurate statement either as all federal abstention case generally involve a dispute as to whether a state court or federal court will adjudicate a particular cause of action.
And the questioner only was allotted about 5 minutes, is not an attorney, so he would not have followed that answer up by getting into the weeds on the issue, but would have moved to his next question.
So, the answer that he doesn't know the doctrine was an honest response. But the fact he couldn't reason things out, and can't or won't even make some general remarks about abstention, demonstrates that he is a stammering, inarticulate buffoon, wants to be a federal judge yet knows less about federal law than a first year law student who completed civ.pro., is completely unable to respond to anything he may hear during oral arguments, etc.
If he was asked about the International Shoe Case, and its jurisdictional implications, he would have responded: "Uh…uh.. I haven't been paying too much attention to shoes lately. I'll check my shoes at home…and uh…see if they have a rubber sole…or…uh.. whether it's…uh…some other substance." Moron!
Of course, worst of worst, a first year law student who completed Civ. Pro would know what a Motion In Limine is, and if not, they would know by the time they take Evidence. When he didn't know, and they simplified the question to ask if he knew what a Motion To Exclude was, the cretin still insisted that he would have to get back to them on that one as it wasn't readily at his finger tips.
Blithering dolt!
Come on, let's be honest. Who actually knew what a motion in limine was when they graduated law school? I will admit that I did not. It acutally never came up in the context of any class. Evidence, nope. Civ Pro, nope. I learned the rules, not how you apply them when you are a real life lawyer.
I did not know what a MIL was in law school. I learned what one was long before I was qualified to argue one, however, let alone judge one. I did know what Daubert was, as well as the various abstention doctrines, before I graduated law school. This guy's nomination was an absolute joke.
Came up in my Civ. Pro. Came up in my Evidence course. Came up in my Trial Advocacy I. Came up in my Trial Advocacy II. Certainly knew it before I had reached 10 years practicing. And even if it had not, go through a Prep Session with attorneys to get you ready for a Senate hearing. Ask Andy Gordon or Jennifer Dorsey what they do to you to get you ready. Incompetence.
The guy withdrew from consideration for the judicial appointment.
http://n.pr/2AYvM85
He had to. It's preposterous to keep his name in for consideration after the one senator established that he was an utter moron who knew less then nothing, and the other senator essentially created the lingering impression the appointee was hopelessly corrupt.
This second senator established that it is illegal for employers to compel their employees to support or contribute to specific candidates or causes. The nominee eventually conceded that point. The senator then asked him why he engages in selective prosecution, that being that when the employer is accused of compelling employees to support or contribute to a republican candidate, he almost never investigates, while if the employer is accused of compelling employees to contribute to or support a democrat, he almost always commences an investigation.
He merely made the quite weak observation that some of those matters may be pending so he really can't comment. Fair enough. But he should have expressed righteous indignation and stated that although he can't comment on individual pending matters, that party politics never plays a role in these decisions, etc.
Even if he can't remark on individual matters, his utter failure to address the broader, and far more important issue, of selective politically motivated prosecutorial decisions, essentially amounted to his failure to deny or challenge the undercurrent of the question–which was, in so many words, "admit you are politically corrupt and a party tool."
What is "sexual misconduct" exactly? Is this an ill defined "void for vagueness" charge or concept. What is happening to due process? Charges being subject to cross examination and review. Some of the misconduct allegations are nothing more than comments which the listener found offensive but never said anything till decades later. How does anyone defend themselves on such allegations in the media.
They can't. There is no due process in the court of public opinion. I agree that most of these men have done some pretty sleazy stuff. But some of it occurred many years ago and I have trouble with somebody losing their job over accusations of something that happened in the 80's or 90's with no indication that it has happened since. People change. Memories change over time as well.
I'm not trying to defend these guys for what they did, but I think there needs to be some discretion as to whether the punishment fits the crime.
Generally agreed. There are some things that are wrong no matter when they took place, but I can also say that the standards of the last fifteen years or so are different than the fifteen years prior to that in terms of office talk, etc. back in the late 80's and through the 90's it was a lot more common to have drinks at lunch, which is something that doesn't happen very often anymore. Led to a lot of talk and other things that were pretty normal for the time but would not be tolerated today.