U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent, was sentenced to nearly three years in prison today after reaching a plea deal with prosecutors and pleading guilty to obstruction of justice for lying to investigators who were investigating claims that Judge Kent had sexually abused two female court employees in Galveston, Texas.

Judge Samuel Kent

Judge Samuel Kent will go down in the history books, for those of us who follow this kind of thing, as the first sitting federal judge to have a sex-abuse case filed against him. That’s not a first I would ever want on my record.

The story, found on MSNBC.com, states:

U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent stared at the floor while the women described years of harassment and abuse at the Galveston courthouse where he wielded great authority as the only federal judge. He apologized to his wife, his family and the federal court staff but never specifically referred to the two women.

He could have received up to 20 years in prison, but prosecutors said they wouldn’t seek more than three years under a plea agreement. He also was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $6,550 in restitution to the secretary and case manager whose complaints resulted in the first sex-abuse case ever against a sitting federal judge.

This case hasn’t generated nearly the headlines that I would have thought. Here we have a sitting federal judge who is going to prison for three years for sexually abusing female staff members at the courthouse over which he presided. Almost two years ago a complaint was filed against Judge Kent and on September 28, 2007, after an investigation took place the Judicial Counsel of the Fifth Circuit entered an order of reprimand against Judge Kent. That order suspended Judge Kent for four months, with pay, and then transferred him from Galveston to Houston, presumably because there was more supervision and the other judges could keep an eye on him.
During questioning by Judge Kent’s attorneys his secretary Donna Wilkerson spoke of years of abuse by Judge Kent. My favorite quote from Ms. Wilkerson was in response to allegations that she was a willing participant in the actions of Judge Kent. Wilkerson stated:

“Being molested and groped by a drunken giant is not my idea of an affair.”

Wow. Game, set, and match Wilkerson.

Here is the part that is going to upset most of the readers, but it shouldn’t and I will explain why. Despite the conviction, and the admission that the sexual conduct was against the women’s wishes, Judge Kent does not automatically lose his seat on the bench, or his salary. In fact, his lawyers are claiming that Judge Kent resigned due to his disability of alcoholism. The disability retirement excuse would be the only way he could keep his salary of $169,300 per year. A resignation would mean that Judge Kent would lose his salary, but if he retired then he would retain the full salary earned while on the bench. This is because retired Federal Judges are entitled to collect their salary for life.

Congress is weighing in on the case of Judge Smith. MSNBC is reporting the ranking members of the House Judiciary committee have stated the following:
Unless Judge Samuel Kent immediately resigns, we intend to introduce a resolution jointly tomorrow to commence an inquiry into whether grounds exist to impeach him and remove him from office,” Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said in a statement Monday.

Let me tell you why you shouldn’t be upset that Judge Kent doesn’t automatically lose his seat on the bench, and that congress should be required to impeach Judge Kent before he loses his salary. It’s a small thing called the United States Constitution, and a minor issue called separation of powers. The Judicial branch of government is, and should remain, independent from the other branches of government. For a Federal Judge to be removed from the bench the judge must be impeached, and they can’t lose their salary. Don’t believe me? Look at Article III, section 1 of the Constitution. There it states:

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

So, what is good behavior? Obviously the actions of Judge Kent are never going to fall under the umbrella of “good behavior”, but in order for the judiciary to remain independent the constitutionally mandated rules must be followed. The Constitution also sets up the process for impeachment, requiring impeachment by the House, and a conviction by a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Such a process ensures the independence of the judiciary, and they don’t have to worry about reprisals for making unpopular rulings.

Honestly, I believe in this case the system is working exactly as intended. If the system were allowed to be circumvented in this case, who’s to say it wouldn’t happen in a less clear cut case. It’s that confusing concept known as due process which protects us all. Everyone charged with a crime is entitled to due process, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

The impeachment should be an open and shut case. Judge Kent already admitted to obstruction of justice charges, and that should be more than enough for impeachment, if he doesn’t resign. I’m glad the system is working and that the rules are being followed. Now let’s just hope that congress decides to move this issue to the front of the line to remove Judge Kent from the bench.