Still Beware Sharon Keller (& Orly Taitz, too)

The Texas Supreme Court won't touch it.

"It" is Sharon Keller's warning.  You know, that we-won't-punish-her-but-you-should-know-she's-dangerous order from the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct.  (I wrote about it here and here and here.)  The short version of the order was that Keller was a bad girl.  

• She ignored various "Binding Obligations" she had as Chief Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
• She violated some of the "Aspirational Goals" of a judge.

She was warned not to do it again.  Or maybe we were warned to stay away from her.  Or maybe both.  In any event, the Commission issued two Public Warnings.  It was the mildest punishment they could find.  Probably milder than any punishment they had the authority to issue.

She responded with a mandamus action in the Texas Supreme Court.  Because she is Sharon Keller.  Not someone who makes mistakes. Not someone who can have things done to her.

You'll recall that she insists she would behave exactly the same way again, which pretty well indicates that if there's a lesson for her to be learned, she skipped school that day.  But then, if you read her opinions it's pretty clear that she doesn't believe in the possibility of rehabilitation.

Anyhow, as Michael Graczyk explains in today's AP report, she went to the Texas Supreme Court.

Keller then appealed, asking for the public warning to be removed from her record and allegations of judicial misconduct to be dismissed.

Today, without explanation, they refused.

Keller Order - Texas Supremes

Not surprisingly, Graczyk reports that her lawyer, Chip Babcock, says

The case is "by no means" over, Babcock said Monday. He said he was writing a letter Monday asking Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson to appoint a special court of review or hold an entirely new trial similar to the one Keller had before the Judicial Conduct Commission.

"Whatever the court thinks is appropriate," he said. "We could have another trial in front of three judges appointed by the court if the court decides it's permissible."

Babcock acknowledged such a proceeding would be "unusual" and something that hadn't happened before.

Ut's kind of like how she describes those death penalty appeals of which she's so derisive.  You know, frivolous filing after frivolous filing after frivolous filing.
There are two differences, though.

1. Keller's filings now really are frivolous.
2. There's essentially nothing at stake here.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, in news from another Supreme Court, the U.S. Supremes this morning refused to grant a stay of the $20,000 sanction imposed on lunatic birther advocate/lawyer/dentist/realtor Orly Taitz for filing her own frivolous actions in federal court demanding that Obama provide a US birth certificate that will satisfy her.  The decision, without comment or dissent, appears in today's order list.

You can read a relatively sober discussion of Taitz and why she got sanctioned at the scotusblog or you can go to Lowering the Bar, do a search for "Taitz," and read what Kevin Underhill has to say about her, or you could do a Google search for "orly taitz is batshit insane."