When judge engages in sex with a court clerk in his chambers AND IN PUBLIC PLACES - that is not a big deal? Obviously, not.

I have written on this blog about a Michigan judge and a son of a judge who engaged in sex in his chambers with a witness in a proceeding where he was presiding.


He was taken off the bench, but not suspended or disbarred and remains an attorney "in good standing".


Recently, two more judges, now in California, also reportedly engaged in sex in the courthouses, one with a court clerk, in chambers and IN PUBLIC PLACES, and the other judge - with multiple different women, in his chambers.  They were neither suspended from the bench,  nor removed - they were simply "censured" and they are continuing to be judges!  Naturally, their law licenses are also intact.


Why such a light discipline?  Is it because the disciplining authorities themselves consist of judges who have a vested interest not to make rulings in such situations which may backfire against themselves.  Is having sex in chambers such a popular pastime among judges?


You know why they were given only a censure and allowed to remain on the bench?  They "admitted wrongdoing" and "expressed remorse".  Imagine.  They did not know they were engaged in wrongdoing when they had sex in chambers, one judge - with a court employee - but as soon as they were caught, they "expressed remorse".  So what?  Didn't they still betray public trust?  Didn't they still dropped the prestige of their profession?  Didn't they still show that their judgment is so poor as to their own actions that they cannot be judges of actions of other people?


Apparently, not.


If this kind of behavior of judges (who are also lawyers) is acceptable - why do we really regulate the legal profession, to give judges power to decide who may and may not earn a livelihood based on whether they criticize such judges or not.


And I am also interested and, frankly concerned, about one more issue:  what is the fate of those who reported the California sex-starved judges?


In Michigan, the judge had the stupidity to "self-report" himself.


In California, there is no information as to how the two judges' embarrassment and discipline came about.


Imagine that they remain in the courthouse where the possible reporter would be their subordinate.


Are the reporters still employed by the court system? 


Or are they the only people really punished for revealing to the public that judges use their chambers as a free tax-funded dating motel?