A Tale of Two Judicial Discipline Cases
Failed to add items
Sorry, we are unable to add the item because your shopping cart is already at capacity.
Add to basket failed.
Please try again later
Add to wishlist failed.
Please try again later
Remove from wishlist failed.
Please try again later
Adding to library failed
Please try again
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
A Tale of Two Judicial Discipline Cases
-
Narrated by:
-
By:
Why did one federal judge receive only a reprimand after engaging in sexual activities in her chambers, while Federal Judge Pauline Newman remains sidelined after more than three years — with no judicial review of her suspension, despite no findings of misconduct and passing 3 mental fitness tests from 3 different doctors?
In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione discuss a recent judicial misconduct case that has prompted new scrutiny of the federal judiciary's internal disciplinary process.
The discussion explores:
- A federal judge who received a private reprimand after misconduct findings
- Why the judge was allowed to continue hearing cases
- How that outcome compares to Judge Pauline Newman's ongoing suspension
- The role of judicial councils in disciplining federal judges
- Concerns about transparency, accountability, and consistency
- Why legal commentators across the ideological spectrum have questioned the result
Mark and John also examine what these cases reveal about administrative processes within the judiciary and whether reforms may be needed to restore public confidence.
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet