This week, Judge Mark Cohen’s long, checkered judicial career came to an ignoble end. The Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari to challenge the 2024 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that he was properly suspended over a litany of partisan social media posts while a sitting judge.
Cohen is a former Democratic politician who ran unsuccessfully for Congress, but served for many years in the state House until defeated in 2016.
In 2018, Cohen successfully ran for the Court of Common Pleas. After receiving a “Not Recommended” rating from the Philadelphia Bar Association, he barely won the seat with the second-lowest vote total among the victors.
During this time on the bench, Cohen continued to maintain his political public persona with social media posts that many found injudicious and unethical. In October 2024, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline took the rare step of ejecting him from the bench and suspending him without pay over his Facebook posts.
These posts included attacks on Republican policies and praise for Democrats such as Joe Biden, Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman. He also spoke out in favor of a variety of Democratic policies and union positions as well as commenting on issues ranging from abortion to gun control.
In one posting on September 22, 2022, Judge Cohen supported Philadelphia District Attorney Krasner, who has since been referred by a judge to the U.S. Attorney for possible criminal conduct:
“Philly DA Krasner, in a switch of tactics, now demands to testify before P[A] House Committee seeking evidence of wrongdoing to begin impeachment proceedings. Good move!” . . .
The irony for critics is obvious, since they have criticized Cohen as a Krasneresque judge who failed to observe proper lines of conduct.
On November 18, 2021, Judge Cohen attacked the Speaker of the House of Representatives: “Good night, Kevin McCarthy. Good night moon. No matter how long Kevin talks, we’ll have House passage of Build Back Better soon.”
His superiors on the Court warned him that such postings violated judicial standards, but Cohen continued to post under the name he was formerly referred to by his fellow judges.
After being suspended in 2024, the suspension was upheld this year by the highest court in the Commonwealth. In his concurrence, Justice David Wecht wrote:
“In an age of ubiquitous social media and heightened acrimony, it is imperative that jurists remain mindful and careful. They must avoid the type of partisan punditry and running online commentary on politics that poured forth continually from the keyboard of the judge involved in today’s case. People are free to do this sort of thing, but judges are people with an asterisk. A person who chooses to become a judge must park some portion of his or her First Amendment rights at the courthouse curb for the duration in which that judge is serving on the bench.”
In his U.S. Supreme Court challenge, Cohen argued that the lower courts erred in failing to apply a strict scrutiny test to his speech as opposed to the balancing test under Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). We have previously discussed the use of Pickering in the limitation of speech of public employees.
Under Pickering, when a judge “speaks on a matter of public concern, then the court must balance the Commonwealth’s interest in preserving the efficient administration of justice against the judge’s interest in making the statement.”
In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how judges in the early Republic were much like Cohen, openly partisan and using their office to herald the accomplishments of one party while denouncing the other. One of the most significant factors in creating our modern judiciary was adopting judicial ethics rules against such partisan statements and conduct. For critics, Judge Cohen appears to have waged a one-judge war to reinstate the “good old days” of partisan jurists.
Off topic
It won’t be the last time this six year old monster threatens police!
Quite an amazing video. How are his test scores? 😏. If it weren’t so horrible it’d be funny.
“[Racial separation] [is necessary], and [though difficult] must be effected by colonization… The enterprise is a difficult one, but ‘where there is a will there is a way’; and what colonization needs most is a hearty will… Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time [not against] our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857 (Adapted)
“A DISCORDANT INTERMIXTURE MUST HAVE AN INJURIOUS TENDENCY”
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
He’s not only a blind partisan, he is a terrible poet. Imagine using the word “moon”. to set up a rhyme with “soon.”
“…properly suspended over a litany of partisan social media posts while a sitting judge.”
Wait! What about Leticia?
______________________________
“I’m holding her in my heart and in my prayers.”
“To her, and to all survivors: you’re not alone. We stand with you.”
– Leticia James
__________________
Man Accused in Cornell Sex Assault Wants James Removed as Prosecutor
Attorney General Letitia James should step down from leading the investigation into a former student’s claim that she was sexually assaulted in 2024, a lawyer for one of the men said.
– NYT
She’s not a judge. She’s a prosecutor. Like Jeanine Pirro she makes all kinds of comments on social media regarding her cases.
You are correct James is not a judge and the standards are different. But prosecutors are ethically constrained regarding their public comments. Defense attorney’s have a clear specific duty to their clients. Prosecutors duty is to justice not politics.
There is a fairly large amount of information available on the Cornell case – and outside of furnishing alcohol to people underage and drug dealing, there is lots of horrid conduct that is perfectly legal. Hochul should have left this to local prosecutors.
And James has already demonstrated that she will throw justice under the wagon for partisan political ends.
This is turning into a witch hunt.
But that is exactly what those on the left want.
I would ask you X why some of the men in this case are not filing rape complaints against Jane Doe.
She came to the fraternity looking for sex. She did not care that the people who looked for sex with were drunk and/or stoned and unable to consent. They sought her consent at each step – she did not seek anyone’s consent.
Absent some highly unlikely revalation or evidence that completely changes this – and that is near impossible given what we know of Jane Doe’s statement, there is no sex offense here AT ALL. There is disgusting conduct – and everyone involved should be expelled – including Jane Doe. The fraternity should be closed. Those who plied underaged with alcohol should be prosecuted. Those who distributed drugs should be prosecuted.
Maybe Jane Doe has a civil case – though I highly doubt it, she is too culpable herself.
But anyone can see how this goes. James will threaten the crap out of the seven, until she gets one to make false claims against the others to save their own skin. The only question is who flips first.
But what will be lost is justice.
John, the reason the public has identity of accused and not the alleged victim?
Does Cornell have a code of conduct and penalties published?
Ultimately, the determination of whether Attorney General James’s comments crossed the line from advocacy into unlawful bias is a decision that rests with a neutral judge. If the court finds that her statements compromised the integrity of the investigation, it has the legal authority to disqualify her and appoint an independent prosecutor to ensure a fair process for everyone involved.
Interesting question: when someone takes the bench, how much personal freedom should give way to judicial responsibility? Justice demands independence, but also integrity and accountability. As Scripture reminds us, “it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” — 1 Corinthians 4:2 (KJV).
More biblical perspectives: https://bibleprophecyinaction.blogspot.com/
You have infinite personal freedom.
But that does not mean you can not lose your job for acting on it.
There is no free speech protection against being fired privately. There is SOME against being fired as a public employee – but it is not large.
(OT) Will the real socialists please stand up:
DSA defenders claim to want a peaceful, “democratic” socialism, an “American-style” of socialism. They allegedly reject authoritarian, dictatorial socialism — government rule by brute force.
And yet: The DSA celebrates Castro’s decades of brutal, dictatorial socialism in Cuba. Socialism’s public mouthpiece, Hassan Piker, embraces Mao’s decades of brutal, dictatorial socialism in China.
Behind every socialist’s smiling face promising you a “vote” (Mamdani) is a totalitarian itching to declare:
“[I am] death. And I don’t mean it metaphorically or rhetorically or poetically or theoretically or any other fancy way. I’m Death, straight up. And I’ve come for you.”
Sam, quoting an animated character from Puss and Boots? Seriously? LOL!! Wow.
The core tenant of Democratic Socialism—distinctly modeled after Nordic and European frameworks—is that the economy and society should be run democratically to meet human needs, not to foster state-controlled dictatorship. By definition, authoritarian rule by brute force is the exact opposite of what democratic socialist platforms advocate for, which focuses heavily on expanding voting rights, strengthening labor unions, and decentralizing corporate power.
Mayor Mamdani is proof that his idea of Democratic Socialism does produce results and…New Yorkers are not complaining.
FYI nobody cares about Hasan Piker. He’s a streamer, not a politician.
Oh oh George X is awake. Let’s see what lies he concocts today.
This: “New Yorkers are not complaining.” Another lie. What happened in NYC yesterday?
You should check the casefile systems for Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island counties. At least try reading the NY Post before you make-up another obvious lie.
What’s the lie? You’re obviously referring to the Oct 7 protests and the subsequent violent attacks peaceful protesters. This has nothing to do with Democratic socialism or the fact the Mayor is doing more than just keeping order.
Your pitiful attempt at dishonest is hilarious. You’re really bad at this.
Not also this Big Lie:
Because many voters rightfully see Piker as toxic, his brothers in spirit try to distance themselves from him: He’s merely a “streamer” or social media podcaster.
And yet: He is the intellectual spokesman and face of the DSA. For the DSA, he vets socialist candidates and publicly campaigns for and *with* them.
Piker is just a streamer, he’s no political heavyweight. The only reason he seems to be is because conservatives and Republicans want to make him out be more than what he is. You can say the same thing about the wild and crazy conservative streamers and nut jobs. Smarter people understand the difference. It’s the crazy kooks that see it as you do. YOU made him the “intellectual spokesman” and “face of the DSA” because it’s easier to demonize by association.
El-Sayed and Mamdani are popular because they can defend effectively their positions and platforms without Hasan Piker. They are more popular than Trump himself who is tanking in the polls. That says a lot.
And yet: The DSA celebrates Castro’s decades of brutal, dictatorial socialism in Cuba
Sam, thank you for mentioning the brutality of Fidel Castro’s Cuba. He literally destroyed the wonderful, brilliant and life-giving culture that once characterized Cuba. It is all gone. What has come out of Cuba these past several years has nothing in common with that which typified Cuba B.C. (before Castro). This is where the DSA and Democrats by proxy are going with America. They hate America, they despise capitalism, wish to eliminate personal freedoms, and will not bat an eye to “disappear” those who oppose them. Witness the many violent threats by Democrat leaders (e.g. Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, et al) against Catholic SCOTUS Justices, President Trump, and too many other conservatives to list, not to mention Charlie Kirk.
Fear the American who shovels socialism as an answer to the malaise that Democrats have created. The US educational system is ground zero for the latter. Show them via hard work, measurable results and personal success (financial, intellectual, developmental) that their way is indeed “[I am] death. And I don’t mean it metaphorically or rhetorically or poetically or theoretically or any other fancy way. I’m Death, straight up. And I’ve come for you.”.
Viva USA
🇺🇸
Viva? Translate?
Congress has NO power to tax for or fund the communist American welfare state.
The absolute limitations in Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment right to private property preclude the communist American welfare state.
Another reason that the left is so desperate to pack the court. Having a supreme court with a majority of members who actually understand the constitution and refer to it rather than to a psycho-babble interpretation only the parts of the constitution that support their progressive ideologies means that most of the radical agenda of the left will be struck down as it should be. Here we see another activist judge being tossed for a very just reason and that only diminishes the ranks of army of activist judges appointed by obama/autopenguy.
Just one? Means nothing to the DSA/Democrats. Plenty more where he came from. And BTW, DSA will change SCOTUS. Matter of time.
There was a video going around, after Trump trounced harris, of a smug feminist woman claiming to be a political analyst and who was snarkly apprising a clerk of why she was buying champaign on election night; to which she offered, condescendingly, that she was preparing to celebrate the election of the first woman president.
She asserted that her research indicated that women would be voting en masse for harris because women were taking control of this nation….well we know how that election ended and that sad sorry feminist was choking on crow the next morning.
I see you are of the same mental certainty as this misbegotten feminist.
There was a video going around… of cousre it doesn’t exist, guessing only the one in your deranged brain.
“I see you are of the same mental certainty as this misbegotten feminist”. You mean the one in your head? Spoken like a true crazy liberal.
Denial is only found in Egypt. Your ability to ignore any data that conflicts with your pre-programmed prog-slave brain is amazing to behold. A textbook example of Pavlov’s theory.
Agreed! Itll be awesome
DSA will change SCOTUS? LOL!!!! DSA makes up less than 1% of candidates. Democrats on the other hand can change SCOTUS if they win a big enough majority, which is not likely. What is likely is they will win one of the houses or both. Ken Paxton is already in trouble and so is Texas “deep red” status. It would probable turn a nice shade of purple very soon. Oh…and Trump will likely croak before his term is up. The Deadpool bets are pretty high on that prediction.
X, socialism is anti Constitution.
One down, lots to go
That is exactly what I was about to say. So many judges acting in a hyper-partisan way, be it with their rhetoric or their insane rulings, throughout this country…yet so few who have the ability and frankly the constitutional obligation to enact remedy by rejection or removal have the ethical compass to do so. Time to get to work, ladies and gentlemen of the Court.
Same way i feel about boomers. AM i right? Holla
Good to see there are some within the justice system who understand the need for impartially, balance, rule of law, ethics.
Good on the PA SC and the SCOUS.
Justice was served today.
SCOUS? That like Magna Carter?
“Holy ‘what goes around, comes around’, Batman!”
can we now remove the 3 DEI queens from the supreme court?
I would certainly think that both the statements and actions (partaking of a role in a decidedly woke broadway play) would indicate the need for removal from any bench, much less the supreme bench. But who has the temerity to advocate this in the hyper-divisive atmosphere of our current media?
Just wait until we add 5 more to the Court.
Altio, Gorsuch and Thomas dont like to be called queens. They are but dont like it
1 down, 10,000 to GO!
So this is some kind of new phenomenon? A politically partisan judge? Anyone besides me notice how many 6-3 rulings we see from the Supreme Court? Or how often the news starts with “Federal Judge Blocks Trump (Insert Program Here)?” If anything is new it’s that someone did something about it!
When Trump (or those appointed by conservative POTUS’) judges rule as expected, is that considered partisan?
Judicial philosophy is not the same thing as naked partisanship. All judges have an overall philosophy regarding that law, otherwise they’d be completely interchangeable, so long as they can tick a list of qualification boxes. What is completely unethical and unacceptable is to express an open desire for certain outcomes or policies outside of cases before the Court.
Do you mean rulings based upon the words of the law as written?
Words of the law. How cutely expressed.
wrong again, you are blinded by your TDS and other indoctrinated stupidity when it comes to comprehending the very essence of this nation and its ethos. But, then again, you are handicapped by your indoctrination to the point of blind ignorance.
Anon asked a clear and simple question and you scream TDS, stupidity. handicapped etc… And yet you refuse to answer it. What does that say about you as a deranged non-conforming Jewess and your MAGAots.
Just in case, I never vote to “retain” a judge. Jefferson was correct about judicial tyranny.
What was he correct about?
So when are they going to deal with Justice Jackson Brown?
Who is “they”?
I think they are referring to the justices who understand the full import of the constitution, not the agenda-driven DEI picks moldering on the bench awaiting the second coming of radical progressive dominion over the nation.
Are you planning a lynching?
Dear Jonathan, every morning the first thing I read are your posts. They are seriously funny and good natured. Your takedown of Immanuel Macron was especially enjoyed. I’m beginning to suspect he has a Napoleon Complex, a psychological mental disorder affecting men of short stature. He may be afflicted with something even more serious due to the name Immanuel sounding much like Emmanuel. He may believe he is the long awaited 2nd coming of Christ in the flesh.
Macron? The article is about judge Mark Cohen.
In a sense, judges are the secular high priests of a lawful society. Because of this unique role, they must be held to higher standards than the average citizen. The public must have absolute confidence that judges are impartial arbiters of the law, rather than rabid political partisans broadcasting polemical views in public forums. Surrendering partisan advocacy is the precise price of judicial authority, a vow of neutrality similar to the sacrifices made by religious clergy. In exchange, judges earn the enduring respect and trust of the people.
Wow, you might say, is this guy out of date! Yet, I believe it.
“In a sense, judges are the secular high priests of a lawful society.” No, not at all. They are judges,common humans with a complex political bent, but in your mind they’re high priests. High priests claim divine guidance, judges don’t. Or do they?
Openly partisan *politically* is one thing in a context wherein all parties are operating within the same system; with the modern left we are talking about something entirely antithetical to the system itself. It’s a nuanced distinction, but it matters.
Judges openly defying constitutional law under the auspices of ‘interpretation’ have ceased being judges altogether. When they employ brute force and undermine the higher courts – pretty much the same. Why do you think the dems are so keen to pack the Supreme Court, after all?
Judges openly defying constitutional law. Got facts to support that?
So why do the dems want to pack the court? Would like to see that.
“His superiors on the Court warned him that such postings violated judicial standards”. And let him continue to rule? Imagine if the judge had made just one pro-MAGA social media post.
But he did not. You’re a lawyer huh, ever here of facts? Tell me you really aren’t a lawyer. Just pretending.
Do you quote the bible in your pleadings? In court? In the shower?
There is no chance for a conservative or a Republican to receive a fair hearing before leftwing Fascist judges like Cohen. In the 1930s, Hitler’s judges were also outspoken when ramming through and rubber-stamping the Socialist agenda. At least Cohen was open about his hate and intolerance.
Ironically you categorize Cohen, a Jew, a one of Hitler’s judges. Are you really as stupid as your comment makes you out to be?
At least? Cohen expressed no hate in his SMs, just political meanderings. Quite unlike yours, filled with hate and loathing.
LOL. Plenty of Jews VOTED for Hitler!
Democrats are the MOST HATE FILLED PEOPLE ON EARTH…BTW!
They are incapable of unbias conduct!
Plenty of Jews you say? At least post a source. Ca. 10k voted NSDAP. Exactly 0.00012% of the total electorate of 80.7 M. Plenty? You sure. about that?
Unbias? Try unbiased. Wanna get taken seriously, learn to spell.
There are many types of Jews and my orthodox husband is not of the same political or moral viewpoint as is a reform Jew-lite such a chuck schumer. I would wager that this Cohen is of the same ideological bent as all those misbegotten sons of Judah who voted for mamdani. You should not refer to all Jews and on coherent group.
Now she claims to be Jew expert. What will she think of next.
The fool