Supreme Court Allows Judicial Coup Against 99-Year-Old Conservative Judge

Clear Facts

• U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, 99, has been indefinitely suspended from hearing cases by fellow judges despite three independent experts declaring her mentally competent
• Chief Judge Kimberly Moore convened a panel of judges to determine Newman’s fitness, creating what critics call an unconstitutional end-run around Congress’s sole impeachment authority
• The Supreme Court declined to hear Newman’s appeal, setting a precedent that allows chief judges to effectively remove colleagues without congressional impeachment

The U.S. Supreme Court recently made a grave error by declining to hear U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. What has happened to her represents an outrageous violation of constitutional principles and judicial independence.

For several years, Newman has endured an unconstitutional suspension imposed by her colleagues based on alleged mental incompetency—a claim anyone who has spent time with Judge Newman knows is absurd. She may be 99, but she remains sharp and capable of working circles around her junior colleagues.

The suspension bars Newman from hearing any cases and amounts to an unconstitutional impeachment and removal from office. The Supreme Court set a dangerous precedent by refusing to intervene.

Newman has served on the Federal Circuit since 1984, appointed by President Reagan. Several years ago, she experienced brief fainting spells.

On that basis alone, Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore convened a panel of fellow Federal Circuit judges to determine whether Newman was competent to serve. The constitutional problem with this scheme is glaring: the Constitution grants lifetime tenure to federal judges to ensure their independence and gives Congress—not fellow judges—the sole power of impeachment.

Moore handpicked judges who were potential fact witnesses. The Federal Circuit operates from Washington, D.C., with all judges serving in the same building.

The judges on Moore’s panel, which included Moore herself, observed Newman regularly. Moore assembled a kangaroo court of judges who had knowledge of all relevant facts ahead of time.

This arrangement resembles a jury consisting of witnesses to an alleged crime sitting in judgment of the accused. Such a setup violates fundamental constitutional principles.

Newman submitted to examinations by three independent experts who evaluated her separately. All three determined her to be of sound mind and fully capable of performing her judicial duties.

Yet this was insufficient for Moore and her panel, as the suspension continues indefinitely. Moore has attempted to minimize the egregious nature of this conduct by claiming Newman was permitted to attend court Halloween parties.

Federal judges receive lifetime appointments to decide cases, not to socialize at office parties. No amount of spin from Moore can remove the stench of Newman’s mistreatment.

Chief judges appropriately have limited authority to briefly remove judges from judicial duties during misconduct investigations. Samuel Kent, a disgraced Texas judge, was suspended while investigators examined whether he had sexually abused staffers.

The evidence against Kent was overwhelming. Facing certain impeachment, he resigned in disgrace and went to federal prison.

The indefinite suspension of Newman bears no resemblance to the reasonable exercise of judicial power in Kent’s case. Newman has consistently displayed the highest integrity and has done everything possible to demonstrate her mental fitness.

Nothing satisfies Moore and her sham panel. Newman now faces permanent banishment thanks to the Supreme Court’s shameful inaction.

The House of Representatives is the sole body vested with the power to impeach judges. The Senate is the sole body with authority to remove judges after trial.

Chief judges hold no such power under the Constitution, yet Moore has effectively accomplished an impeachment and removal. While Newman still receives her salary, she is barred from performing the most essential task of a federal judge: hearing cases.

Where does this dangerous precedent lead? U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence VanDyke serves as a frequent dissenting voice on the radical Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Could leftist Chief Judge Mary Murguia decree that VanDyke is cognitively deficient and thus incapable of serving? Can any chief judge handpick a panel to rubber-stamp a determination of mental deficiency and force out another judge?

No limiting principle governs what was done to Newman. If Moore can do it to her, any chief judge can do the same to any other judge, even when Congress has shown no inclination to impeach.

Some judges richly deserve impeachment. U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross of Georgia is a judicial disgrace who allegedly used her chambers to conduct an extramarital affair with a married Atlanta police commander.

Ross, who is also married, committed this disgraceful act multiple times within earshot of her shocked clerks. Yet she received only a private reprimand from her judicial colleagues.

She is not suspended and continues to hear cases despite being a laughingstock. Newman, by contrast, has never done anything to dishonor the judiciary, yet finds herself permanently barred from fulfilling her primary responsibility: deciding cases.

A judiciary where Eleanor Ross can preside over cases while Judge Newman cannot is one in complete disarray. The Supreme Court could have stopped this constitutional crisis but chose silence.

That disastrous decision could carry grave consequences for judicial independence for many years to come. The message is clear: if the judiciary can remove one of its most distinguished members without congressional oversight, no judge is safe from political manipulation.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.