The judge should have immediately recused himself from the case.......and, if possible, he should be removed from the bench for his behaviors.

One of my high school teachers was fired because, during the summers, he was flying to California making less than soft-porn......naked massage type stuff. Guy was butt-ugly too....kinda looked like the pro-wrestler Hacksaw Jim Duggan. Bubba Walenski....best damned english teacher I ever had....shit-canned after 25 years for making a video during summer break of him massaging a woman's butt....and licking her toes.

Remove this judge for teh clear impropriety he has partaken in. File immediate articles of impeachment in the House and get this guy out of there.

I don't particularly care for this guys actions and I think he should resign for his lack of professionalism and the obvious conflict here, but did he do anything illegal? The only thing illegal I see here is the bestiality in the case he was trying, but the last I checked none of what was mentioned to have been found on his computer was illegal. And he wasn't selling it to minors.

It doesn't matter whether it's legal. Judicial ethics requires a higher standard of conduct than a normal person. There are many things judges aren't ethically allowed to do--like contribute money to political candidates, act as a character witness, or hold office in a political party--that are legal and ethical for others to do.

This guy disgraces the robe. He shouldn't have the opportunity to do so any more.

And he did the appropriate thing, and likely will never get another job. So he's gotten his punishment for being a hypocrit, so let it be.

Maybe we should burn a giant P into his forehead like they did in the old days.

It doesn't matter whether it's legal. Judicial ethics requires a higher standard of conduct than a normal person. There are many things judges aren't ethically allowed to do--like contribute money to political candidates, act as a character witness, or hold office in a political party--that are legal and ethical for others to do.

This guy disgraces the robe. He shouldn't have the opportunity to do so any more.

I really don't think you should take the robe off this guys back, lord alone knows what he's got under there.

How did he do the "appropriate thing?" He didn't do the "appropriate thing." He got caught doing the INAPPROPRIATE thing. He didn't volunteer the information that he had a conflict of interest in this case--the LA Times found it, the prosecutor asked for a chance to investigate the conflict of interest, and the judge--caught--admitted to it. That's not the appropriate thing; that's the only thing left to do when you have no credible defense.

Now he claims some of it must have been downloaded by his son. Because he "doesn't remember" all of the images. But he did, in fact, admit to most of them.

I would hope one would remember the filth he deliberately took off the internet and put on his own site. He must be the stupidest judge in the world--what kind of idiot would keep stuff like this, knowing it could sink his career? I'll tell you what kind--the kind all porn addicts are. The kind that think they'll never get caught, or that if they do get caught somehow the rules magically won't apply to them (this has nothing to do with being a judge, by the way. I have yet to see a secret porn addict display any sense at all about practicing their habits--not over the long haul, anyway.)

This judge is also yet another object lesson in the moral/political conservative split. Moral conservatives all too often take on immoral ones as allies and give them a pass--as they apparently did when he did this:

"Several years ago, for example, after learning that appeals court administrators had placed filters on computers that denied access to pornography and other materials, Kozinski led a successful effort to have the filters removed."

Why would someone do that? No moral conservative should admire someone who would deliberately expose computer users to pornography.

Moral conservatives need to go back to basics. We should have no permanent parties--only God's permanent interests. They didn't push Reagan in 1980 because he was a Republican. They joined with Republicans because the GOP was aligned with THEIR interests. Remember, a lot of the Reagan evangelicals had been Carter evangelicals just 4 years before.

I don't care how pretty a man writes, or which president appoints him, or how often he sides with me--if he is a man of vile moral character, he is not my friend. And he gets no slack for agreeing with my politics.

Judgment begins in the house of God, but it must also be exercised over those who would use that house for their own great gain.

"I really don't think you should take the robe off this guys back, lord alone knows what he's got under there."

You know, I kind of wondered when I wrote that if someone was going to jump into that gaping hole I left. Should have guessed it would be you, WB. :-)

Everyone may now feel free to move about the cabin and make "gaping hole" jokes.

...but did he do anything illegal? The only thing illegal I see here is the bestiality in the case he was trying, but the last I checked none of what was mentioned to have been found on his computer was illegal. And he wasn't selling it to minors.

It's not about the law, it's about public perception. Judges MUST hold themselves to higher standards than "if it's legal, then it's OK"...in order for the People to trust the judicial system. That's why you dont' see judges getting drunk at BBQs on the weekends. That's why you don't see judges running off to LAs Vegas and partaking in legal prostitution. That's why you don't see judges running around town in protests or doing anything else that gives an air of impropriety.

That's why my teacher was fired. As a teacher, he is to be held to a higher standard than "if it's legal, it's OK".

Sarge,

I was actually thinking quite a bit about that last night, since more and more just about everybody is being judged by what they do outside of the office, not just judges. Particularly with the internet age, and the ability to Google everyone. Personally I think it could become a case that gets heard before the supreme court, where a defendant argues what they do outside of the office is their own damn business, particularly in cases unlike the judge, where their conduct has not substantial impact on their job. In other words there is a big difference between a truck drive and a judge collecting porn. About the biggest impact in the driver's case would be an image problem for his employer. And I could ultimately see someone argue that if their employer has the ability to dictate what they can and can't do during the 2/3rds of their life they aren't on the job, than they should be compensated .

"I was actually thinking quite a bit about that last night, since more and more just about everybody is being judged by what they do outside of the office, not just judges."

It's actually not "more and more." It's less and less. People used to believe that a person's private life was a strong indicator of their character. A man or woman who was so much as divorced could suffer for it when people found out, on the job, in the family, whatever.

"Particularly with the internet age, and the ability to Google everyone. Personally I think it could become a case that gets heard before the supreme court, where a defendant argues what they do outside of the office is their own damn business, particularly in cases unlike the judge, where their conduct has not substantial impact on their job."

Again, you are ahistorical (and rather hysterical). Character used to be a huge factor in everything--you couldn't get a job without it. People jealously guarded their private reputations, and there was a healthy sense of shame about failing to be a good wife or husband, father or mother, credit risk, citizen, etc.

"In other words there is a big difference between a truck drive and a judge collecting porn."

This is true, in one sense. The judge is not ethically supposed to. But in another sense, they are the same. Both have families they are destroying. Both share the same sick compulsion. In a way, the judge is merely denying his commonality with the truck driver, with the mistaken notion that having a position of responsibility makes him worthy of it. But, in fact, he is only worthy of it because he upholds its standards. It is the dignity of the office that he is to steward--when he does not, he becomes unworthy of it. But, because he shares this perversion with the truck driver, they are equally worthy of being judges--i.e., not at all.

"About the biggest impact in the driver's case would be an image problem for his employer. And I could ultimately see someone argue that if their employer has the ability to dictate what they can and can't do during the 2/3rds of their life they aren't on the job, than they should be compensated ."

Again, the employer has the right to assume that a person of bad private character is likely to be a person of bad working character--and, in the case of a public official, of bad public character, as well. That is not telling them what they can and can't do. It is merely the employer maintaining a standard of character for the people he wishes to have working for him.

If you wish to work for an employer of good reputation, you should maintain one yourself.

Kerry,

Nobody is that saintly, especially across the entire spectrum of their lifetime, either in thought or action. So for an employer to be allowed to deny employment to someone based on some incident buried on an archived website from 10 years ago when they were a college freshman puking their guts out in a photo, or video, is tantamount to treating them like they have a felony on their record, and ignoring everything else that is in their resume, and work history.

And employers have even less of an excuse if the person has been working for them for years, and clearly is a good employer, but gets fired because of something they did that has nothing to do with their job.

Now granted somethings are inexcusable, like murder, rape, pedophila, but losing your job because you bared your breasts at a party when you were a teenager 20 years ago. Give me a break.

Oh and I suspect that 90% of teenage boys have voluntarily seen some form of pornography on their computer or elsewhere? Should they be denied employment for the rest of their lives because of this. I think not.

Ahmanrah,

You seem to have the opportunity to work confused with a "right" to have a particular job. Employees are not "entitled" to continue in a job if the employer finds them objectionable, for whatever reason. If an employer does not want adulterers or porn addicts or people who swear all the time working in that person's business, why should he not have the right to let them go?

You seem to imagine that every job is a union job. In reality, if I want to show you the door for being a stripper as your second job, I have every right to do so.

And, as usual, you introduce irrelevancies like "an incident buried on some archival website from ten years ago" and drinking and--most inexplicably--"because you bared your breasts at a party when you were a teenager."

We are talking about a judge. A judge with an active pornographic fetishist website. Passing judgment on a fetishist pornographer.

Judges are required to be above reproach, both professionally and personally. To be impartial. To refrain from acting to advance their own personal interests and preferences.

This guy has violated the ethics code. Disqualifies him from being a judge. Open and shut. Send him to rehab and give him his severance talk show. Six months from now he'll be back fat and happy as a FoxNews contributor, rubbing elbows with other losers and creeps like Susan Estrich and Dick Morris.

And the tide rolls on.