pack the board (called the Judicial Court of Discipline) that will decide Eakin's fate. Eakin clearly has been voting on the nomination of his political ally. Jesus! In America you do NOT get to pick your own judge after you did something wrong. What kind of tinhorn dictatorship does that? In what fantasyland of due process does the alleged wrongdoer get to pick his friend to be the judge? And these people do this as though they cannot even see what the problem with it would be.
In many ways this is even better proof of Eakin's unfitness than the emails
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=360650191
"Gov. Wolf called on Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin to resign Saturday, hours after The Inquirer reported that the justice was part of a ploy to install a new appointee to the judicial disciplinary tribunal expected to decide his fate in the pornographic email scandal.
"This process is absurd," Wolf spokesman Jeff Sheridan said. "Justice Eakin's behavior is reprehensible and beyond unbecoming of an individual, let alone a Supreme Court justice.
"Justice Eakin should resign," Sheridan said. "The people of Pennsylvania deserve better."
Wolf's call for Eakin to step down came after Chief Justice Thomas Saylor on Saturday abruptly halted the high court's bid to nominate Karen Snider, a former secretary of the state Department of Public Welfare, to the Court of Judicial Discipline. Within days, the court is expected to take up the matter of whether Eakin violated judicial rules by sending or receiving several dozen emails that contained offensive content.
The Inquirer reported earlier in the day that Saylor and Eakin were backing Snider so she could support Eakin in the disciplinary process. The Inquirer also disclosed that Eakin had traded emails with friends in which he discussed plans to visit strip clubs and made racy comments about his female judicial aides.
In his statement Saturday, Saylor called Snider "a candidate with excellent credentials," but said several justices were concerned because Eakin had participated in the vote to nominate her to the Court of Judicial Discipline, which will decide his fate in the email scandal.
"I shared those concerns and do not believe Justice Eakin should participate in the decision," Saylor said.
Because Snider would have been eligible to vote on Eakin's case, Saylor said, "I made the decision to withdraw Ms. Snider's name and restart the nomination process."
Asked Friday whether Eakin had participated in the vote, a spokesman for the court refused to answer, saying it was an "internal matter."
Saylor confirmed in his statement that Eakin had voted. The chief justice, who has considerable power over the court, was silent on why he had permitted Eakin to do so. Saylor's statement did not reveal how Eakin or any other justice had voted.
The high court's about-face followed an Inquirer report that Saylor and Eakin were backing a plan to install a new member on the disciplinary court in a bid to assist Eakin.
In many ways this is even better proof of Eakin's unfitness than the emails
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=360650191
"Gov. Wolf called on Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin to resign Saturday, hours after The Inquirer reported that the justice was part of a ploy to install a new appointee to the judicial disciplinary tribunal expected to decide his fate in the pornographic email scandal.
"This process is absurd," Wolf spokesman Jeff Sheridan said. "Justice Eakin's behavior is reprehensible and beyond unbecoming of an individual, let alone a Supreme Court justice.
"Justice Eakin should resign," Sheridan said. "The people of Pennsylvania deserve better."
Wolf's call for Eakin to step down came after Chief Justice Thomas Saylor on Saturday abruptly halted the high court's bid to nominate Karen Snider, a former secretary of the state Department of Public Welfare, to the Court of Judicial Discipline. Within days, the court is expected to take up the matter of whether Eakin violated judicial rules by sending or receiving several dozen emails that contained offensive content.
The Inquirer reported earlier in the day that Saylor and Eakin were backing Snider so she could support Eakin in the disciplinary process. The Inquirer also disclosed that Eakin had traded emails with friends in which he discussed plans to visit strip clubs and made racy comments about his female judicial aides.
In his statement Saturday, Saylor called Snider "a candidate with excellent credentials," but said several justices were concerned because Eakin had participated in the vote to nominate her to the Court of Judicial Discipline, which will decide his fate in the email scandal.
"I shared those concerns and do not believe Justice Eakin should participate in the decision," Saylor said.
Because Snider would have been eligible to vote on Eakin's case, Saylor said, "I made the decision to withdraw Ms. Snider's name and restart the nomination process."
Asked Friday whether Eakin had participated in the vote, a spokesman for the court refused to answer, saying it was an "internal matter."
Saylor confirmed in his statement that Eakin had voted. The chief justice, who has considerable power over the court, was silent on why he had permitted Eakin to do so. Saylor's statement did not reveal how Eakin or any other justice had voted.
The high court's about-face followed an Inquirer report that Saylor and Eakin were backing a plan to install a new member on the disciplinary court in a bid to assist Eakin.
