The race to be named federal judge most likely to be impeached has been nip and tuck, but we always knew the winner would come from this very circuit. The smart money for a long while was on the Louisiana-bred Thomas Porteous, with Samuel Kent of Texas the only other candidate with an exacta shot. Kent's odds just shortened considerably, and maybe we should put him on top, because he appears penitentiary bound. He copped a plea Monday, with prosecutors agreeing to settle for a sentence of three years.
Don't write Porteous off, though, for he has pretty good form. After being caught filing for bankruptcy under a false name and putting the arm on attorneys appearing before him, he was suspended by the Fifth Circuit and recommended for impeachment by the Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, no less.
A U.S. House of Representatives investigation was cranked up again a few weeks ago after being interrupted by last fall's elections. Porteous appeared to top the sleaze rankings.
But he has never been charged with, let along convicted of, a crime so that Kent, in pleading guilty to obstruction of justice, may now have stolen a march on him. U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who sits on the judiciary committee, has already called for impeachment after Kent is sentenced in May.
Kent would have been beyond congressional jurisdiction had he resigned upon conviction and taken himself off the payroll. Instead, he characterized his departure as retirement. You can see why he would. Federal judges have a truly superior retirement plan; they get to keep their full salary, currently at $169,300, for the rest of their lives. Only impeachment can stop it.
They can take retirement before the age of 65 only if they are disabled. That may explain why his attorney at sentencing announced that Kent, who is 59, suffers from depression, anxiety and diabetes and is being treated by a shrink.
Depression and anxiety are probably not uncommon when prison looms, and there was no suggestion that Kent was too sick to remain on the bench when he was protesting his innocence and promising to bring a "horde of witnesses" to fight these "flagrant, scurrilous charges."
He has now admitted that he did indeed force his attentions on two women employees and then lied to investigators. By pleading guilty to obstruction he avoided trial on five sex counts that could have brought life in prison.
Kent and Porteous rank even in one respect. If they had a lick of shame, they would resign.
While Porteous was under investigation by the Judicial Council of the local federal circuit, he, too, indicated a willingness to take disability retirement, but that kind offer was refused. Porteous nevertheless continues to draw his salary for doing nothing. At 62, he is several months into a two-year suspension, which is the maximum punishment available to the Judicial Council.
The dignity of the federal bench would suffer greatly were he to return to it when his suspension is over, and impeachment may be the only way to prevent it. But it would come at some cost to constitutional principle and judicial independence, for, after five years of sleuthing, the feds could not come up with a single criminal charge.
Since impeachment is reserved for cases of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes or Misdemeanors, " there is a case to be made that Porteous' antics were too penny-ante for congressional intervention.
A minority of the local Judicial Council so argued, though admitting that Porteous certainly deserved suspension.
Porteous showed a lot of early speed, but Kent's guilty plea suggests he might be the stronger finisher. Regardless, the Impeachment Stakes rightfully belongs in this circuit.
. . . . . . .
James Gill is a staff writer. He can be reached at 504.826.3318 or at firstname.lastname@example.org.