Alright then. You don't have to agree with this taste in jokes, and you certainly don't have to agree with his pictures. They are terrible things. If you want to argue that he's a shitty person based on these things I won't argue with you about that. Being a shitty person doesn't make you a shitty judge, though. If you want to argue that you should be held to a higher moral standard as a judge, I might concede that point to you, too. You probably should be held to a higher moral standard. I believe the term limit is 10 years on a PA Supreme Court judge. If he's an impartial judge despite his character, then what is the solution? Is having questionable character enough for him to be removed?
Here come the judge's emails.
- Thread starter lionlurker
- Start date
Alright then. You don't have to agree with this taste in jokes, and you certainly don't have to agree with his pictures. They are terrible things. If you want to argue that he's a shitty person based on these things I won't argue with you about that. Being a shitty person doesn't make you a shitty judge, though. If you want to argue that you should be held to a higher moral standard as a judge, I might concede that point to you, too. You probably should be held to a higher moral standard. I believe the term limit is 10 years on a PA Supreme Court judge. If he's an impartial judge despite his character, then what is the solution? Is having questionable character enough for him to be removed?
bwifan
Well-Known Member
I'm certainly no advocate of beating anybody, gender aside. I don't know if that's a conclusion you drew but it's not an accurate one. However, being offensive is meaningless. People can be offended for any reason they like. It doesn't mean anything to say, "that hurt my feelings" which is what being offended means. The line, however, can be drawn at creating a hostile workplace by saying these things in the workplace where people can hear them.
But no, I don't agree with beating women, men, or anybody for that matter if that is what you're implying. Is it? If somebody wants to make a tasteless joke outside of the work place then what are we supposed to do about it? From what I can gather these jokes were sent from his personal e-mail account. If there are e-mails of him sending these from a Commonwealth account then I'll be happy to get my pitchfork out, I have a whole shed of full of them.
Oh geez. A JUDGE is required to exercise good JUDGEMENT. See the connection between those two words?? A shitty person often exercises poor judgement. That's what makes them shitty.
Last edited:
Thanks Ned2, some here just can't wrap their head around the Eakin issue as an ethical problem related to the judicial cannon. I'm an engineer licensed in several other state along with PA.
Professional engineers have a Canon of Ethics to ensure that the publics welfare and safety are addressed in every document of our designs. Should a person or project become compromised by safety issues, injury or monetary tribulations, the engineer of record could be held in criminal negligence with the consequences of fine, suspension of license and jail time.
Why should I be held to a higher accountability than a supreme court justice...base on the thought of the B/W discussion?
Last edited:
Sure. I'm concerned with his judgement when he's being a judge, though. I'm sure judges all around the country exercise poor judgement in their lives. A matter of fact, everybody at some point exercises poor judgement in their lives. What kind of standard are we looking for? Correlation does not imply causation. In other words, just because somebody makes poor decisions outside of work doesn't mean they can't do their job.
I wouldn't expect Ben Carson to be a renowned brain surgeon because I find his views to be pure idiocy, but the guy is a talented brain surgeon nonetheless.
He's the same guy who looked the other way when his officers went to Asia to engage in sex with minors.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and [jrd23] stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
This is truly foolish. Regardless of what persons of any political stripe think of Kathleen Kane, if he knows she is holding the Sword of Damocles over his head, he had a duty to acknowledge it before voting on her license to practice. He never did so. And that is the LEAST of his sins. The duty is on HIM to raise any appearance of impropriety, not on others to raise it IF they find out about it as he is hiding it. You folks seem to think judges and sewer workers and insurance agents and electricians are all held to the same sort of standard. They are not.
Last edited:
I believe it was Noonan's predecessor, but it may have happened under Noonan's watch also.
The mine set of jrd23psu in this post leads me to the impression it would be OK for our state troopers to be rapping 12 and 13 year olds, because it's legal in some Asia countries.
Question...why did she have access to his private account? Was she granted a warrant? If so, was said warrant regarding this issue? If so, all's fair....
My guess is that he used his govt email account for something, perhaps small, but there were other emails (from or to other people) from his "john smith" private account. If so, that brought that email into question as a participant in these shenanigans.
Honestly, I am more sympathetic about the porn than the sexist and/or racist jokes. (although the porn is enough for me) I don't know how a supreme court justice can be excused if he/she shared racist jokes anytime beyond the age of college (meaning, I can forgive him if is was a long time ago and childish).
My guess is that he used his govt email account for something, perhaps small, but there were other emails (from or to other people) from his "john smith" private account. If so, that brought that email into question as a participant in these shenanigans.
Honestly, I am more sympathetic about the porn than the sexist and/or racist jokes. (although the porn is enough for me) I don't know how a supreme court justice can be excused if he/she shared racist jokes anytime beyond the age of college (meaning, I can forgive him if is was a long time ago and childish).
Kane didn't have access to Eakin's private account.
This is email traffic between Eakin's private account and accounts on PA government servers which Kane did have access to.
It was a personal email address owned by him, set up by him, but without his name attached. Instead he used the name "John Smith." And, he not only watched porn or looked at pornographic pictures, he sent them to state judicial and OAG employees on state servers and he received them from the same servers. This is a person who is called upon to review cases involving rape, incest, child sex abuse, gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and so on. Not only does he have to decide those cases without bias for or against any party, HE MUST APPEAR TO BE WITHOUT BIAS FOR OR AGAINST ANY PARTY.
How likely is it that he appears to be without racial bias when he is making fried-chicken jokes?
I truly cannot tell if you are joking. If this is serious, then it is likely that you are too dim to get what anyone might say about this.
The bigger surprise is the utter arrogance of these guys, to just sit there and say nothing.
I expect that this move today was calculated in how she told reporters that there is still more. One would have to think that she still holds some queens, kings, and aces in her back pocket.
I expect that this move today was calculated in how she told reporters that there is still more. One would have to think that she still holds some queens, kings, and aces in her back pocket.
OK. Consider this hypothetical. An employed man living in a small town likes to drink a lot. And I mean A LOT. He's at the local watering hole two or three nights a week and is often noticeably drunk. Fortunately he's a jokester and a happy drunk so everyone gets a kick out of him. He lives within walking distance to the bar and never needs to drive. When he's at the bar he never endangers himself or others since he can really hold his liquor. Due to rumors about him, on a number of occasions his employer has checked his sobriety while on the job. Each time the guy was stone cold sober. Would you trust the guy to work for you?? Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the guy is a cop in a small town so everyone knows who he is. Would you still have confidence in his ability to do his job fairly and impartially when he's faced with a decision to arrest one of his drinking buddies?? Or should he be held to a higher standard and be told by his employer to stay out of the bar??
Does anyone read jrd23psu's posts and wonder "Wow, just how many board names does Michnittlion have?"
This isn't quite correct.
Eakin was accessing this material via his private account through whatever device he used for that account (undetermined). I haven't looked at the timestamps. Some of them might have been on time when he was on the clock and some not on the clock.
However, Kane was able to discover the emails because he was exchanging this crap with government employees who were using government resources to send/receive it.
So even if Eakin himself was not using government resources, he knew that the people who were on the other end were using government resources. Seeing as he has upheld convictions of public employees who used government resources for personal purposes, he has no excuse for encouraging/allowing/condoning the same behavior that he knew was wrong.
Hi Obliviax, nice shot over the bow....you knew the answer before asking the question.....
sort of like "Iron Sides". loved that series.
Have nice night with the other siblings, I'm leaving for home shortly to a beer, shot & a netflex disc..Blacklist, love this series also
step
Having the whole world know you are a shitty person MAKES YOU A SHITTY JUDGE NO MATTER WHAT. He is not held to a higher moral standard, he is held to a higher ethical and legal standard. You not only must be impartial, the justice system requires you to APPEAR to be impartial.
How important is context in all this?
http://newslanc.com/2015/10/23/state-court-porno-emails-and-relationships-demand-federal-prosecutor/
For one example, the email chain titled “Men in Training” already has troubling, and darker, overtones that certainly shed light, when viewed in context, on Pennsylvania law enforcement, or lack thereof.
As fate would have it, the “Men in Training” email was mailed to recipients on March 3, 2009 — the same day Centre County DA Michael Madeira referred the Jerry Sandusky case to Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett’s office, according to AG Kane’s Moulton Report on the investigation of the Sandusky case.
“Mr. Sandusky is well known to me and is the adoptive father of my wife’s brother,” DA Madeira wrote to AG Corbett’s executive deputy attorney general on March 3, 2009. “My wife, who was adopted by another family, remains close to her brother and to his adoptive family. Given the close family relationship, an apparent and actual conflict of interest exists for me and my office. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Office of Attorney General assume responsibility for the prosecution of this case, effective immediately.”
But AG Tom Corbett’s office wouldn’t be seriously assuming responsibility for the Sandusky case “effective immediately.”
That same day, March 3, 2009, the “Men in Training” email recipients are listed to include chief Sandusky prosecutor Frank Fina, Sandusky case chief investigator Randy Feathers, and future Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan (who himself was also a retired FBI agent), among many others.
At the time, this is what these men were doing in AG Tom Corbett’s office when they should have been going after former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky.
The same day DA Madeira wanted them to look into Jerry Sandusky’s behavior, Fina, Feathers, Noonan and the others were receiving email images from cohorts depicting a young boy staring down the underpants of a topless young girl, among other photos.
http://newslanc.com/2015/10/23/state-court-porno-emails-and-relationships-demand-federal-prosecutor/
For one example, the email chain titled “Men in Training” already has troubling, and darker, overtones that certainly shed light, when viewed in context, on Pennsylvania law enforcement, or lack thereof.
As fate would have it, the “Men in Training” email was mailed to recipients on March 3, 2009 — the same day Centre County DA Michael Madeira referred the Jerry Sandusky case to Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett’s office, according to AG Kane’s Moulton Report on the investigation of the Sandusky case.
“Mr. Sandusky is well known to me and is the adoptive father of my wife’s brother,” DA Madeira wrote to AG Corbett’s executive deputy attorney general on March 3, 2009. “My wife, who was adopted by another family, remains close to her brother and to his adoptive family. Given the close family relationship, an apparent and actual conflict of interest exists for me and my office. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Office of Attorney General assume responsibility for the prosecution of this case, effective immediately.”
But AG Tom Corbett’s office wouldn’t be seriously assuming responsibility for the Sandusky case “effective immediately.”
That same day, March 3, 2009, the “Men in Training” email recipients are listed to include chief Sandusky prosecutor Frank Fina, Sandusky case chief investigator Randy Feathers, and future Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan (who himself was also a retired FBI agent), among many others.
At the time, this is what these men were doing in AG Tom Corbett’s office when they should have been going after former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky.
The same day DA Madeira wanted them to look into Jerry Sandusky’s behavior, Fina, Feathers, Noonan and the others were receiving email images from cohorts depicting a young boy staring down the underpants of a topless young girl, among other photos.
jrd: I understand your reluctance to condemn Judge Eakin for what one could regard as his own private predilections (as opposed to his actual judicial rulings or conduct), but the rule obligating judges to go the extra step and avoid even the appearance of impropriety or partiality has been on the books of each state for a long time, and for good reason. Judges have significant authority to decide often weighty issues of life, liberty and property, and in order for the populace to have confidence in the notion that the courts are dispensing justice in a fair and unbiased fashion, judges have to go out of their way to send a message of impartiality and non-bias. That may seem unfair to individual judges, but it comes with the territory, and they know it when they assume judicial office..
You know who laughed at this? Every damn woman I've shown it to, including my elderly mom and mother in law. My wife. My adult daughter .
She especially liked Ronald Reagan giving Angie Dickinson the pimp hand at 27 seconds.
The faux outrage here is amazing . I can't believe all you fellows are card carrying NOW members / church ladies fighting the good fight against nudie pictures , porn, and tasteless jokes.
If you had half a brain you'd check to see what the HR rules were in place at the time and see what the app punishment was before going all social justice warrior on this .
I suspect that if you or one of your family were being tried by this judge, perhaps you'd feel differently.
And if nobody really does care about it other than us here, perhaps that is a very good explanation for why Pennsylvania's state government is among the most corrupt in the nation.
Wow. That post has a whole lot stupid. What is the most recent clip in your film montage?? 30 years?? Maybe 40?? And I won't mention the obvious fact (but I just did) that movies are make believe. And a large number of the clips were from comedies. Point out one recent movie which shows a man slapping around a woman which isn't in the context of him being a criminal.
But it was a good effort at misdirection on your part. Sure, link some old film clips of women getting the pimp hand and somehow think people will see it as a good defense for Eakin. Totally irrelevant but again, an "E" for effort.
I doesn't matter whether the clips are old or new, people laugh at stupid shit today like they did 100 years ago, including a lot of people expressing faux outrage. The point is a supreme court justice should not be participating in perpetuating that sort of thing, because the appearance is bad in terms of impartiality, etc. regardless the vintage of the material.
The age of the clips matter in regard to what people find acceptable and how society evolves. There's a reason we don't see women getting slapped around in movies today just as there's a reason we don't see movies depicting black men as rapists and the KKK as a heroes like in "The Birth of a Nation". Elvis63 used the clips as some sort of defense for Eakin. It may have worked in 1950s or 1960s but it's now 2015.
Last edited:
Because it isn't PC and doesn't show up on TV as much doesn't mean it doesn't still go on in other venues. The emails in question prove that. Social media changed everything. And by the way, I am in no way condoning the judge's behavior. I think he should resign.
Hopelessly stupid. So things like violence to women which you find funny and some women you-know find funny should not be considered offensive by those who ARE offended by them. Are you a veteran or do you have veterans in your family?
The fact that a troglodyte like elsivs63 attempted to use those as a defense of Eakin says more eloquently than any of us ever could, exactly why Eakin has to go. I suspect if Eakin had traded jokes about whatever elvis63 finds sacred, he would see exactly what the problem is.
We all have our sacred subjects. When our sacred subject is stopping violence against a group (women) who make up over half the population, it's kind of amazing that he would be surprised there are so many people who take offense. Guaranteed he has his own sacred subjects. I suggested veterans, but it would be easy to write a skit mocking whatever religious/patriotic/cultural thing he finds sacred. Then he would complain, and we could call it faux outrage.
I would not be the least bit surprised to see a flurry of EEOC complaints/lawsuits. Any woman who worked for any of the guys on that email trail who feels that she was mistreated in the workplace is going to present
this correspondence as evidence of a hostile workplace. These guys -- every single one of them -- are idiots.
Similar threads
