Justice Eakin should be judged

Pennsylvania's all too cozy and conspiratorial approach to policing its judiciary made Thursday's rejection of a deal with a suspended Supreme Court justice a "total shock," in the words of his lawyer - and a welcome one. Despite repeated signals that ethics charges stemming from J. Michael Eakin's bigoted and profane emails would end in yet another backroom bargain, a panel of the Court of Judicial Discipline insisted on the public airing for which the case cries out.

Court of Judicial Discipline Judge Jack Panella told lawyers for Eakin and the Judicial Conduct Board - which brought ethics charges against the justice last year after being forced to revisit a botched investigation - that no deal would be considered, saying the case is "about much more than sanctioning a particular jurist." Indeed, Harrisburg's sprawling electronic exchange of pornography and prejudice has yet to be properly investigated and adjudicated despite having brought the state's justice system into disrepute.

Until recently, the process deployed to consider Eakin's offensive messages has been as halfhearted as one might expect of a state where judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys feel remarkably comfortable disparaging women and minorities in each other's virtual presence. In 2014, Eakin was investigated and cleared by a Judicial Conduct Board whose chief counsel was a friend of the justice and whose membership included a recipient of some of the same emails. The Court of Judicial Discipline revealed this week that the board did not require Eakin to testify under oath and kept no transcripts of its interviews with the justice.

At the same time, the arranged early retirement of another justice involved in the emails, Seamus McCaffery, prevented a full examination of that and other scandals. In a supposed "self-report" of his misconduct after McCaffery implicated him, Eakin failed to provide the board with the emails at issue. And after additional disclosures and a Supreme Court order forced the board to conduct a second investigation, the justice attempted to bypass the board for the discipline court and pack the court in his favor.

In recent weeks, the court and lawyers for Eakin and the conduct board had suggested another deal was possible. The court's principled decision Thursday to let the case proceed suggests an overdue determination to hold even the state's top judges to ethical standards.

As Judge Panella noted, proper handling of Eakin's case can begin to repair the damage done. Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who discovered the emails on her office's servers, has disclosed them only selectively and, facing criminal and impeachment proceedings, can't be counted on to investigate the matter thoroughly and objectively. Given the extensive involvement of prosecutors and other officials, as well as the possibility of inappropriate communications between judges and attorneys, the Supreme Court should appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate the scandal.

The justices also must address the weaknesses of the judicial discipline system that the Eakin case has exposed by making it more transparent and independent. Finally, the legislature should pass a bill to reform the partisan judicial elections that have saddled the state with a judiciary in which basic accountability still comes as a shock.