0 We're suing the president... but the corrupt judge is off limits -- Really??

From CNN:  "The Republican-led House approved a resolution on Wednesday authorizing Speaker John Boehner to sue President Barack Obama over claims he abused his powers at the expense of Congress and the Constitution.

The vote was 225-201.

Republicans argue Obama's executive orders in a number of areas were unlawful because it's the job of Congress to make or change laws. But they believe his handling of the Affordable Care act gives them the best chance at proving their case, and are basing the suit on that issue.

House authorization now allows GOP-leaders to have the unusual challenge filed in federal court. The time frame for that is not clear and many legal experts question whether any judge would take it on.

Not a single House Democrat voted for the resolution and five Republicans opposed it."

OK, everyone knows that's going nowhere, but it's included as background for this...  This is just another waste of time, effort, money and resource.  And, we wonder why Congress has a nine per cent approval rating..  

You can't make this stuff up...

Judge Wade McCree Jr. lost his job, for now.  

This judge, in Detroit (where else??), who once texted a shirtless photo of himself to a female court bailiff, had a physical affair with a woman while overseeing her child custody case.  He had sex with her in his chambers and sexted her from the bench.  REALLY??  Read it again:  Did you see that he had the affair WHILE he was presiding over her case against her ex-husband?

But he can't be sued for money damages  because judges are immune from civil lawsuits — You can sue the President, but Judge McCree is immune??   REALLY??

Yep, it's a long-established doctrine that has many in the legal profession, and even more outside the profession, shaking their heads, and stating that the McCree case highlights a pervasive problem in the justice system (just one??): judges getting away with unethical, or simply bad, behavior on the promise of immunity.

It undermines public confidence in government," said Connecticut civil rights attorney Norm Pattis, author of "Taking Back the Courts," a 2011 book that documents flaws in the justice system.  That could be one big book.

"I don't think anybody should be above the law, least of all those who administer it," said Pattis, who labeled the immunity status as "a crazy rule" and the McCree case as "outrageous."

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that McCree could not be sued by the father of his mistress' child, even though his actions were "often reprehensible."

The ruling baffled Attorney Joel Sklar. He represents the father, Robert King, who claims McCree denied him access to a fair and impartial judge by having an affair with Geniene La'Shay Mott when she sued King over child support. King claims McCree's decisions — such as placing him on a tether — were influenced by his "sexual desires" and that his rulings unfairly favored his mistress.        Ya think, Robert??

"This conduct is absurd," Sklar said. "It's so beyond description. A judge uses his chambers to have sex with a litigant? ... If this isn't too far, what is too far?"  Well Joel, it does seem a little too far.

It has long been recognized that for judges to be able to render impartial decisions, without fear of repercussion, they need to be immune from lawsuits. 

But just because you can't sue judges for money doesn't mean they can get away with unethical  behavior completely.  

Judges can be removed from the bench; McCree was. The Michigan Supreme Court removed him from the bench and suspended him for six years, They made it six years, fearing that the voting public is so uninformed that they'd reelect him in November.    

 News interview videos are included here for your viewing pleasure (yes, these are real interviews, not Saturday Night Live -- although SNL, take note; this could be a hilarious skit).  Note that McCree wants to keep this affair "under the covers," which seems to be the ultimate double entendre. 

While it is understood that a loosening of the immunity doctrine would trigger a mountain of lawsuits against judges, there has to be a middle ground.  Maybe there should be an exception clause:  When a judge is deciding a child custody case, while sleeping with the mother, the father wins.  

This isn't a one-time situation either; in Tennessee, a judge escaped liability recently -- he was accused of propositioning a woman for sex in exchange for him issuing a warrant for some individuals she claimed attacked her.  REALLY??

A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit, concluding that even if the judge did ask her for sex, he was protected by immunity. The judge did lose his job.  Maybe he'll be reelected.  And, maybe the federal judge who made that decision should lose his.

Is this our best?

Wanna read another Detroit mess, from a year or two ago??  Go to Internal Affairs has new meaning in Detroit. 

__________________________________
How 'bout following us on Twitter, or signing up here.. We'd love to see you.. We only have 80 folks, and we'd love to get to a couple hundred (sign up on the left, where it says "join this site") so we can see your picture on this site. And follow us on twitter (@curtmacrae), where we don't post much, but we'd love to see you there. 

Posted 4th