First, the pro se motion was directed at a single judge
whereas the blog post was directed at nine judges. Second, the Georgia motion
was directed at the lowest level federal judge while the blog post was directed
at the country’s highest ranking judges. Third, no one with the possible
exception of a judge’s law clerk reads pro se motions. On the other hand, “Hercules
and the Umpire” is a popular blog read by thousands. (The Hobby Lobby post elicited
314 comments.) Fourth, the federal judicial code requires judges to “act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.” No similar
ethics rule binds pro se litigants. Fifth, the pro se motion, in effect, states
that the court is worthless. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But
the federal judge’s blog post not only questions the integrity of the Court but
goes further and demands that the Justices not exercise their God-given rights
guaranteed by the First Amendment.
So, on balance, the pro se litigant probably should not
receive worse punishment than the judge who authored the blog post. And yes,
that would be no punishment.