The Huffington Post details the content of the complaint:
Her comments were not recorded, but five students and one attorney who were in attendance signed affidavits swearing to what they heard.
The complaint alleges that Jones said certain "racial groups like African-Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime," and that they are "prone to commit acts of violence" and be involved in more violent and "heinous" crimes than people of other ethnicities. The judge also allegedly said Mexicans would prefer to be on death row in the U.S. than serve prison terms in their native country, and that it's an insult for the U.S. to look to the laws of other countries such as Mexico.
The allegations were laid out in a 12-page complaint backed by several Texas groups and filed Tuesday in New Orleans, where the appeals court is based. The complaint said Jones engaged in conduct that, among other things, "undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and creates a strong appearance of impropriety."
The Houston Chronicle points out that the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice to have the review of her condust conducted by the DC Circuit Court is highly unusual. From the justice's letter:
"I have selected the Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit to accept the transfer and to exercise the powers of a judicial council with respect to the identified complaint and any pending or new complaints relating to the same subject matter," Roberts said in a letter addressed to the D.C. circuit's chief judge that was posted on the 5th Circuit's website.
It is only one of a handful of times in U.S. history that a federal circuit judge has been the subject of a public judicial misconduct complaint and a formal disciplinary review. Normally such matters are secret under federal law.
More from the Huffington Post here. And more detail from the American Constitution Society. For background on Edith Jones and past controversies involving here, click on her Wikipedia page. This process is a new one for me. When we discuss the judiciary we will discuss its inherent weakness - in 2305 we review Hamilton's arguments to that point. For all its bluster, court decisions have proven easy for other institutions to ignore. All it has is the sense that it judges in a fair manner. This investigaton seems intended to ensure that that appearance is maintained. I have no idea what can occur as a result of the review process or how quickly a decision will be made. This is worth followign closely.
