A couple of weeks ago, via How Appealing and SCOTUSBlog, I saw a report (188-page pdf) from the "Breyer Committee," which studied the operation of the federal judicial misconduct procedures. The gist of that process is that circuit chief judges look into accusations, and then can refer them to councils for deeper investigation. So the committee looked into how these cases have been handled.

The upshot was that most of them have been handled pretty well, but a few high-profile cases could have been dealt with a little more thoroughly. The mainstream media picked this up with regard to a California judge who was accused of mishandling a case involving a probationer he was supervising. See here and here and here for more on that. Another that created a little buzz was the Sixth Circuit furor over panel assignments and delays in death penalty and affirmative action cases. One reference that tickled me was to the Second Circuit judge who criticized President Bush and the decision in Bush v. Gore. One wonders what Justice Breyer thought about the inclusion of this line about the council's actions: "The council dismissed the allegation that criticizing Bush v. Gore showed incompetence: 'reasonable people disagree over the soundness of the opinions in that case.'" Indeed they do. Anyway, there are some interesting stories in there.

But what intrigued me most was the portion where the committee discussed other disciplinary matters. Under the topic of issues with judicial temperament that might not rise to the level of a formal complaint, a chief judge said:

Some people have abusive temperaments....You pick that up on the grapevine, at a judicial conference, at a bar meeting. In temperament cases, sometimes it works if you reverse the judge in a real sharp way. This has to be approached very carefully. You don't want to look as if you're moving against a judge because of stylistic differences or -- God knows -- because of a judge's views. You could easily compromise the independence of the courts, doing that.

I thought it was really intriguing that a judge would say something like this, even anonymously. I didn't take the judge to mean that a court of appeals would reverse a district judge solely for being intemperate. But it sounds like it could be a factor, or maybe that a judge wouldn't get as much benefit of the doubt if he or she has an abrasive personality. Something for judges to keep in mind, I guess, although it's probably cold comfort for an abused litigant.

(Source for the "bench-slap" in this post's title: the legendary A3G.)

What I'm doing at work: Lawd-a-mercy, I've been busy. I've been seriously in the weeds for a while. I've been working longer hours than I can remember, skipping lunches, the whole deal. Nobody told me the law was a job! I thought it was a profession! The sad thing is that even if I could talk about it, I don't have much interesting to say. My work hasn't been terribly fascinating lately; I've just had a lot of it. About the neatest thing has been a case where two of the major players have the same obscure name. It's not quite as confusing as the two Emmett Fitz-Humes at our law school, but I works with what I gots.

What I'm doing at home: This has been a mess. A little rain caused a big leak in my roof. My DVR had a meltdown and lost a bunch of stuff I wanted to watch -- likely scuttling a movie review post. I've had some family matters necessitating some unplanned travel. I'm glad September is over.

What I'm watching: I've been watching "Studio 60," although I haven't gotten to this week's episode yet. I'm still giving it time. It's enjoyable enough. Also haven't gotten a chance to watch the premiere of "Friday Night Lights," but I'm looking forward to it. A few movies: Down in the Valley: I think I saw what they were trying to go for here, but I'm not sure they pulled it off. Not bad but not great. I Am a Sex Addict: Amusing enough. The trouble I had is that the first nine-tenths of the film are about the director/star's problem, and the very end is about the big solution, so it feels a little too cheap/easy. But I did like the way it was shot as a semi-documentary, and the director's asides. Brick: I liked it a lot. It's a classic film noir murder mystery set in a high school. That will either appeal to you or not, I guess. If you like noir and can get past the snappy-tough dialogue coming from teenagers, I recommend it.

What I'm reading: I'm in between books at the moment, which probably means a book review post is coming soon. I just picked up a mystery called Sharp Objects and Chuck Klosterman's new one because I was looking for something lighter.

What I'm thinking about: I actually have some thoughts about the Mark Foley mess, but I'm going to stay out of it, I think. I'd bet money that Foley's won't be the last resignation we'll see in all this, though. (I mean members of Congress resigning from Congress, not just staffers and not just members resigning from leadership spots.) And I'd bet a lot of money that someone finds a Democrat who's been "overly friendly" with a page.

I'm also thinking about: some other political stories I don't want to talk about; college football; relationships; revamping some stuff on this site; something to write on my other site; my resume; a trip I've got to take to a place I've never been -- the second in two weeks; the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, and long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. Not necessarily in that order.