Just came across this at ThinkProgress:
The Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit will conduct a formal misconduct hearing into Chief Judge Richard Cebull’s decision to email a racist joke about President Obama’s mother having sex with a dog.
This is good news -- I think -- but it seems that Judge Cebull himself wants this to be the sole answer to a lot of questions about "what can be done" we were asking yesterday.
The bulletin includes this kicker about the Ninth Circuit's decision to open a proceeding:
According to the Ninth Circuit, Cebull initiated the inquiry. Additionally, Cebull told Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MO) that he will formally apologize to the president.
There's got to be more to this story, and I'm gonna take a swing around the Internets to see what I see, and possibly add clarification of the situation as I find it.
But I just wanted to see this news on the "Recent Diaries" list.
UPDATE(S):
There's no Circuit among those of the Federal bench I'd rather have look into Cebull's misconduct than the Ninth. The Olympian, linked in ThinkProgress's piece explains the procedures:
According to the 9th Circuit's rules on misconduct proceedings, the judicial council can dismiss the complaint if it is found to be inappropriate or if corrective action has been taken.
Otherwise, the counsel has the ability to censure or reprimand the judge, order that no new cases be assigned to him for a designated period of time, or ask the judge to retire.
The council may also refer the matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States if the conduct may constitute grounds for impeachment.
Assistant Circuit Executive David Madden said he does not believe a dismissal is likely in Cebull's case because the complaint was self-initiated.
I question a proceeding based upon a "complaint" filed by the subject of the complaint, himself. It would seem Cebull may be attempting to set the framework and limits of the possible considerations undertaken by the judicial council. But, I'm not a lawyer, and the workings of these things is 'wa-a-ay out of my area of expertise. I hope there are others here than can expand on the thought.
However, among the official 9th Circuit Rules that seem, on their face, to apply to Richard Cebull are these:
3. Definitions
. . .
(h) Misconduct. Cognizable misconduct:
(1) is conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
... (E) engaging in partisan political activity or making inappropriately partisan statements;
. . .
(2) is conduct occurring outside the performance of official duties if the conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts, including a substantial and widespread lowering of public confidence in the courts among reasonable people.