The Washington Post has an editorial today saying that Judge Roy Pearson, he who formerly sought $65 million for a pair of lost pants and related outrages, should not be reappointed to his position as an administrative-law judge in D.C. The Post seems to believe that a judge should show good judgment:
Mr. Pearson was poised for a new 10-year term when publicity about the pants suit caused the judicial tenure commission to put a hold on the process. If it is interested in maintaining the credibility of an office charged with deciding civil infractions of D.C. rules, it should act quickly to foreclose any possibility of Mr. Pearson's reappointment. That he showed such poor judgment in pursuing his own case should disqualify him from deciding those of others.
In the comments to a post about this editorial on the Wall Street Journal's excellent Law Blog, views range from He Did Nothing Wrong to Society's At Fault to Send Him to Gitmo to (my favorite) He Should Be Barred From Wearing Pants.
Link: Law Blog - WSJ.com
Link: Washington Post editorial ("Dressing Down")
