On Tuesday, a federal judge informed the president that he will be resigning, although his resignation will not be effective until June of next year. United States District Judge Samuel Kent, who presides over a courtroom in Texas, submitted the resignation following the acceptance of his plea deal in a sexual assault case. Kent admitted to attempting to force two of his subordinate employees, a case manager and a secretary, to engage in unwanted sex acts with him.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the only way to remove a sitting federal judge is by impeachment, a power vested in Congress. Federal judges are appointed for life because they should be more impartial; if they were re-elected every few years, they would be tempted to hand down decisions that are popular rather than correct from a legal perspective. For example, a pre-Civil Rights Era Supreme Court Justice might not have authored the Brown v. Board of Education opinion, which famously declared that separate is not equal, if he had to answer to the voting public. Judges are supposed to be immune from the pulls of popular opinion. The House of Representatives was scheduled to begin the process of impeachment this week, but that will likely not continue, and Ken had decided not to speak on his own behalf before the House Judiciary Committee.
Initially, Kent had attempted to retire on the basis of a disability, a move which, if granted, would have allowed him to continue drawing his six-figure salary permanently. His petition was rejected, however, and he submitted the resignation letter effective more than one year from now due to his desire to maintain health care benefits for his wife, who is ill with brain cancer. In the meantime, Ken will serve his sentence of 33 months in prison in addition to a $1,000 fine and about $6,000 in restitution to his victims.
An article is available here.
