Who is Eleanor Ross? She’s the Eleventh Circuit federal Judge who, for two years, had an affair with a police officer. Why would that be a problem? Because she regularly engaged in loud, B-movie comedy sex in her chambers, and lied about it. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explains:

Advertisement

“The Subject Judge characterized the allegations as ‘outrageous’ and ‘baseless’ and specifically denied each one. Apparently aware that Law Clerk A was the source of the allegations, the Subject Judge noted that the judge had repeatedly chastised Law Clerk A for performance issues, including ‘being on [the clerk’s] cell phone in court and in the office,’ ‘arriving to the office late,’ and wearing attire that the judge considered ‘too casual.’ The Subject Judge implied that Law Clerk A might have made allegations as a means of retaliating against the Subject Judge.”

“Subject judge,” because the Eleventh Circuit kept her name confidential, issued a “private reprimand, and the judge agreed not to serve on judicial committees or serve as Chief Judge. Her name quickly leaked.

Advertisement

Graphic: X Post

Advertisement

I agree with Turley, who questions a private reprimand and her fitness to serve as a judge. The foundation of our justice system is truthfulness, not only for witnesses, but for officers of the court. Lawyers can get in real trouble for lying in documents or even allowing a client to lie. They—particularly defense lawyers—sometimes get away with both, but the foundation remains. Police officers caught lying lose all credibility and usually, their careers, as they should.

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman entertained an essay on the topic by Emeritus Professor Arthur Hellman. Hellman notes critics who think the punishment accorded Ross is “woefully inadequate.” He and Blackman agree the next step should be considering impeachment, which is rarely done. Only 15 have ever been impeached; only eight have been convicted. One resigned before trial, charges against one were dismissed, and the rest were acquitted.

Advertisement

The judge who resigned in 2009 lied to a judicial panel investigating his conduct:

…Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a member of the House Judiciary Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, explaining Article III of the articles of impeachment against Judge Kent (p. H7061): "Clearly, everyone would agree that a judge who lies to a judicial body investigating his conduct … is not fit to remain on the bench." The House unanimously agreed to Article III as well as three other articles of impeachment.

Advertisement

That judge engaged in more egregious sexual misconduct than Ross, but Hellman notes:

So this is one of those rare instances in which the Judiciary has found that a sitting judge has engaged in conduct that is almost identical to conduct that the full House "has independently determined to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors warranting [a judge's] impeachment and removal from office."

Advertisement

Hellman concluded:

I have not said anything here about the conduct that was the subject of Judge Ross's false statements. Although not an appalling abuse of power like Judge Kent's conduct, the characterization in the Eleventh Circuit Special Committee report (p. 16) might support a separate article of impeachment. 

As Blackman notes in a separate article, the House Judiciary Committee is considering impeachment:

Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Wednesday that his staff has "already put together a memo" on the facts involved in the misconduct findings against Judge Eleanor Ross of the Atlanta-based US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The "key fact," he said in a brief interview, was that Ross lied to the judges investigating her misconduct.

Well, yes. But that’s not all the Committee ought to investigate. Why a private reprimand? Is Ross such an outstanding and invaluable judge the judicial investigators decided to retain her? If that’s true, why don’t they want her serving as Chief Judge or on judicial committees? Were they engaging in ass-covering about some other, unknown, misconduct by Ross or other judges, perhaps including members of the panel that investigated her? What hasn’t been released about their findings, their deliberations, or conclusions?

Obviously, her conduct could have exposed her to blackmail. Did that happen? Equally obviously, the panel was trying to avoid damage to the judiciary by public exposure of Ross’ behavior. That didn’t work out so well. Was Ross’ retaliation against the clerk worse than we know? Did she retaliate against other clerks?

Democrat claims about Supreme Court illegitimacy are based not in honesty but because the majority renders rulings based on the law and Constitution rather than Democrat political desires. But in the Ross case, A judge thinking with her genitals and lying about her conduct can do real damage to public opinion of the judiciary, an opinion that is already low enough.

Become a subscriber and get our weekly Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription. 

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, lifelong athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer, and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.