DN Editorial: Porn excuse for a court

THE STATE'S code of judicial conduct is an exhaustive document that outlines strict codes of behavior and conduct for judges. It's a warning to judges that the standards for conduct are far higher than what applies for the Average Joe. And the code outlines for the Average Joe the kind of impeccable conduct we can expect from judges.

Nowhere does it say, "If you're caught having sent hundreds of pornographic emails, make sure you apologize . . . but not too profusely. In fact, try to suggest that you're being victimized."

Nor does it say, "That apology is even better if you try to excuse your behavior based on how cultural standards from your police and military background differ from the court's."

We're being ridiculous, of course, but no more ridiculous than the reality of state Supreme Court Justice - boy, it's hard typing out that vaunted title - Seamus McCaffery's clueless nonapology for more than 230 pornographic emails he apparently sent from a private email address to his frat brothers throughout Pennsylvania that featured that not-very-sorry phrase, "If I offended anyone . . ."

What the code of conduct does say is: "A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice . . .

"Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics."

We don't know what's in the emails that McCaffery sent, but based on the descriptions of emails sent by other members of our upstanding government, we're assuming that the content more than fits the bill for demeaning "negative stereotyping," and "attempted humor based on stereotyping."

The chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association issued a strong statement on Friday, urging that a special counsel be appointed to investigate, and that the judicial conduct board review the situation as soon as possible. The bar association also suggested that the court consider immediate action - which could include suspending McCaffery.

This has to be dealt with quickly. The more time that passes, the more jokes will be made, and nothing undermines the authority of the court faster - or more tragically - than becoming a joke.

What's wrong with this Supreme Court? Last week, reports claimed that Justice J. Michael Eakin used a fake name on an email account to receive emails with explicit and racist images. He claims that McCaffery threatened him if he didn't try to have Castille back off. A year ago, Justice Joan Orie Melvin resigned after being convicted for public corruption.

How many more arguments do we need for merit selection of judges? Instead of having to vote for judicial candidates whose qualifications are based in part on raising enough money to run, we are long overdue for the appointment of judges.

And it's clear that by trying to excuse his conduct by evoking his police and military background in which crude language and coarse jokes are more acceptable, McCaffery never grasped that his elevation to the high court came with a different set of standards.

Unfortunately, his case is only the most recent. These embarrassments will continue until we change the system.