In what legal experts are calling a necessary reckoning for judicial integrity, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has launched a formal judicial review into four liberal lower court judges over alleged conflicts of interest. The move, which many see as long overdue, seeks to determine whether these judges improperly used their positions to benefit political allies—or, in simpler terms, business as usual for left-wing judicial activism.
The Allegations: A Masterclass in Ethics Violations
The four judges under review, whose identities have been withheld for now, are facing allegations ranging from financial entanglements with Democratic donors to outright partisan favoritism in key rulings. Among the most damning accusations:
- Judge Joe Barron allegedly ruled in favor of a wind energy company while simultaneously owning stock in the very same company—a move so brazen, even California ethics boards briefly considered investigating before realizing he was too far left to fail.
- Judge Art Tubolls reportedly accepted an all-expenses-paid trip to a luxury spa from a law firm that frequently argues cases in his courtroom. When confronted, Tubolls insisted the trip was “strictly educational” and that “champagne facials are essential for judicial clarity.”
- One unnamed judge is suspected of ruling against conservative plaintiffs in 96% of cases while moonlighting as a paid legal consultant for a progressive policy group—because who says you can’t have it all?
- Another judge allegedly signed off on a $12 million taxpayer-funded grant to study “the emotional burdens of climate change on urban houseplants”—a decision that left many wondering if judicial impartiality had officially left the building.
The 10th Circuit Steps In—But the Judicial Ping-Pong Begins
Legal scholars predict this review could be a defining moment for judicial accountability, but in typical liberal fashion, the accused judges have already begun appealing the investigation. This, of course, has led to another judge overruling the review, which was promptly overruled by yet another judge, followed by a counter-overruling from a judicial oversight panel, which was in turn appealed to a special review board.
At last count, the case was set to be decided by a Justice of the Peace in Billings, Montana, because why not?
What’s Next?
If found guilty of conflicts of interest, the judges could face disciplinary action, removal, or—more likely—a book deal and a guest spot on MSNBC. Meanwhile, conservatives continue to wonder why judicial ethics reviews only seem to gain traction when targeting left-leaning judges, while their right-leaning counterparts remain under the watchful protection of “independent judicial discretion”.
At press time, Judge Joe Barron was spotted purchasing additional shares in the wind energy company, because why let a little thing like ethics ruin a solid investment?