A federal judge in Florida was charged with misconduct by a traditional administrative watchdog for arguing that sex should be included in the pre-requisites for legal representation in multi-district litigation involving an injectable birth control product.
The Article III Project ( A3P ) filed a complaint against Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on Thursday for remarks made at a First Case Management Conference regarding Depo-Provera, an inert birth control product, which is pending litigation.
In accordance with A3P, Judge Rodgers “discriminatorily suggested that intercourse should be a pertinent factor in choosing management counsel for the multidistrict dispute,” stating that “females need to be properly represented in your management.”
The issue states that” this remark expressly favors females in the planning of specialized roles and responsibilities.” ” By implying that sex — rather than qualifications, knowledge, or significance — may affect choice for MDL leadership, Judge Rodgers engaged in conduct that constitutes illegal bias and criminal misconduct”.
Judge Rodgers publicly supported sex-based decision-making, which constitutes poor administrative favoritism and goes against the principle of impartiality, according to Mike Davis, the A3P founder and president. It goes without saying that Judge Rogers ‘ assertion that “every one leader I’m looking for is a female does not apparently defend the express desire for women.”
Judge Rodgers, who presides thousands of individual cases, was discussing the lead attorneys who largely represent all the cases, who needed women to provide the cases.
” Appropriately, I respectfully request that this issue be thoroughly investigated and that appropriate remedial action be taken to ensure that all counsel, regardless of sex, are afforded similar treatment in these deliberations”, Davis added.
Similar issues have recently been made against other judges by Davis ‘ group. A3P ordered Senior Judge Michael Ponsor of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to regret for an article that appeared in the New York Times in December. Onsor had criticized Samuel Alito, a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, for flying flags in a way that leftists believed to be indicative of political extremism. A number of stories were made available by The New York Times last spring that attempted to disparage Justice Alito’s nationalism in connection with two flags flown at his residences in Virginia and New Jersey. Alito’s wife hung an American flag inside over following an argument with a roommate over a vulgar anti-Trump signal, and in New Jersey, the couple flew an” Appeal to Heaven” banner with origins dating to the war for independence.
In the Times, Ponsor wrote that flying those flags was equivalent to putting a” Stop the steal” bumper sticker on your car. ” You just don’t do it”.
Just before the great court began making crucial decisions in cases involving guns, censorship, and costs for the defendants in cases involving the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, The Times fabricated the emblem controversies.
After U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Albert Diaz concluded the op-ed constituted misconduct and eroded public trust in the judicial system, Ponsor apologized.
” Among other transgressions, Ponsor, a 1994 Clinton appointee who sits in Springfield, Mass., was found to violate rules against actions that’ detract from the dignity’ of a judge’s office and harm ‘ public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,'” according to the Wall Street Journal.
