The impeachment of Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Judge Kent was nominated to this judgeship by George H.W. Bush on August 3, 1990, to a seat vacated by Hugh Gibson, confirmed by the United States Senate on September 28, 1990, and received his commission on October 1, 1990. On June 19, the US House decided to impeach a federal judge, namely Samuel B. Kent, judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, for high crimes and misdemeanors. This made Judge Kent the first Federal Judge to be impeached since Walter L. Nixon, Jr. in 1989 and the fourteenth since the start of the Republic.
Now why would a federal judge be impeached? In the past there were mainly two reasons for a federal judge to face impeachment proceedings: unfitness (mainly drunkenness) or corruption. This is not the case in these proceedings. The reasons here are far more despicable. More Below.
Criminal proceedings and legal shenanigans to keep pay
In August 2007, Chief Judge Hayden Head of the Southern District of Texas issued an order indicating that Judge Kent would not be hearing cases between September 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008. During Judge Kent's four-month leave of absence, he continued to draw his annual salary; he did not perform judicial work, with his cases instead allocated to other judges for handling. Judicial discipline is extremely rare in the 5th Circuit. Judge Kent was transferred to the Houston division of the Southern District of Texas in January 2008. On December 20, 2007, the 5th Circuit issued an order indicating that there was an ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigation into the allegations underlying the complaint to the Judicial Council.
On August 28, 2008, Kent was indicted on three federal counts of abusive sexual contact and attempted aggravated sexual abuse, stemming from the same alleged conduct that was the basis for the 2007 misconduct complaint. He is the first federal judge to be charged with federal sex crimes. On January 6, 2009, the federal grand jury that indicted him in August added three additional counts, for aggravated sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact and obstruction of justice.
On February 23, 2009, the day on which jury selection was to begin, Kent pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice, and agreed to retire as judge, although it was then unclear whether he would be permitted to retire, rather than resign. He also acknowledged that he had had nonconsensual sexual contact with two female employees between 2003 and 2007. Samuel Kent was sentenced on May 11, 2009 to serve 33 months in federal prison on the charge of obstructing justice in the investigation of sexual abuse accusations. The obstruction charge carries a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison. As part of a plea agreement, Kent admitted that the sexual conduct was non-consensual. Kent must also pay a $1,000 fine and a total of $6,550 in restitution to the two accusers. While in prison he will be required to take part in the Bureau of Prisons Alcohol Treatment Program. In pronouncing sentence over Kent, Judge Roger Vinson stated, "Your wrongful conduct is a huge black X ... a stain on the judicial system itself, a matter of concern in the federal courts,". On June 15, Kent reported to the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts to begin his sentence.
Although Kent purported to "retire," the minimum age at which a federal judge may retire with pension is generally age 65, a condition that Kent, at age 59, does not meet. An exception allowing for early retirement is if the judge seeking to retire certifies to the President that he is "permanently disabled from performing his duties," supplying a certification to that effect issued by the chief judge of the circuit. This would allow him to keep receiving his $169,300-a-year salary. Retired federal judges collect their full salaries for the remainder of their lives; judges who resign get nothing. That did not satisfy the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee, Reps. John Conyers Jr., (D-MI) and Lamar Smith (R-TX), who demanded that Kent resign immediately or face possible impeachment. However, in May 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion written by Chief Judge Edith Jones, denied Kent's disability status and instead recommended his impeachment.
Kent will thus continue to draw salary pending the effective date of his resignation, unless impeached. The requirement of Article III that federal judges "shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office" may preclude action against his salary barring impeachment.
Impeachment
On May 12, 2009, soon after Kent was sentenced to 33 month in prison, Congressmen John Conyers, Jr. and James Sensenbrenner introduced separate resolutions (H.Res. 424 and H.Res. 431), which were referred the House Judiciary Committee which two days later voted to begin impeachment proceedings, as a reaction to Kent's refusal to resign. On May 27, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recommended that Kent be impeached and ordered that he not be given disability status. Chief Judge Edith Jones wrote that "a claimant should not profit from his own wrongdoing by engaging in criminal misconduct and then collecting a federal retirement salary for the disability related to the prosecution." Jones also noted that Kent did not appear to be disabled or impaired. The Fifth Circuit's Judicial Council urged the Judicial Conference of the United States to "take expeditious action" toward impeachment proceedings before Congress.
On June 2, 2009, Judge Kent submitted his resignation to President Obama to avoid hearings in Congress. The resignation to be effective as of June 1, 2010. This only angered the House and it went further with the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment hearing was chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and featured testimony from his accusers, Cathy McBroom and Donna Wilkerson. Kent and his lawyer refused to attend, calling it a "circus." On June 9th, the Task Force unanimously voted to report four articles to the full House Judiciary Committee. The next day the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send them to the full House. The vote in the House was scheduled to take place on June 19.
When the first debate on the House floor on the impeachment of a Judge in two decades took place, it was relatively brief, and three of the four articles of impeachment were passed unanimously, and the fourth having only one congressperson voting "present". Before the House vote, Judiciary Committee member Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), said to House members that Kent collecting a salary of about $174,000 while in prison constituted "an attempt to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from the American people."
The articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate, where a trial is going to take place. It is likely the trial will take place before the Senate goes into recess in August. Anyway, it's up to Sen. Leahy (D-VT) to put up a shedule, but given the Sonia Sotomayor hearings also coming up within the same time frame, this makes the Senate Judiciary Committee's workload even heavier...
Article I. Sec. 3 of the Constitution gives the U.S. Senate the "sole" power to "try" impeachments. Because of the word "sole" it is clear that the judicial branch was not to be included. According to the Supreme Court, impeachment is a a nonjusticiable political question (Nixon v. United States). Given the despicable nature of the crime he was convicted for and the "rapes" that lay at the basis for the conviction and because of the despicable way he tried to keep a hold on a salary he no longer merits, it a near certainty that Kent will be joining the 7 previous federal judges who were impeached and removed from office. Ironically one of them now sits in the U.S. House and voted for his impeachment (Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-FL). Given the nature of the impeachment this will also not become a political impeachment like Andrew Johnson’s or Bill Clinton’s. He was impeached by the House on a bipartisan manner and he will be convicted by a near unanimous bipartisan majority in the Senate as well.
And on that day a stain on the federal judiciary will be removed.
You can use this thread to vent your disgust about this man or to discuss impeaching federal officials in the past present or future.