indicating that removal was a lawful sanction because the Constitution “sets forth removal as.an available sanction for bringing disrepute upon the judicial office”
How later courts described this case
- indicating that removal was a lawful sanction because the Constitution “sets forth removal as.an available sanction for bringing disrepute upon the judicial office”
- noting that this Court reviews sanctions for lawfulness and does not re-weigh the penalty against aggravating and mitigating circumstances
- “the purpose of our review is not to re-weigh the sanction against aggravating or mitigating circumstances, but to determine whether the sanction is lawful”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION
Chief Justice CAPPY.
I join the majority opinion but specifically disassociate myself from the debate over note writing engaged in by the concurring opinions, which is obiter dicta.