Another judge in trouble , , .

[ex-khobar Andy]

. . . for apparently making his clerks view dirty pictures. No argument from me - the man sounds like a turd based on what the NYT says. But I was struck by this sentence referring to an earlier instance when the judge had been in trouble with the judgocracy, if that's a word:

In 2008, The Times reported on a family website that he contributed to where some of the content veered into the raunchy. The judicial council of the Third Circuit admonished Judge Kozinski, who apologized for carelessness in leaving the material publicly accessible.

Is this place (Plan B) a family website? Some of the content sometimes veers towards the raunchy if you count bad language and worse puns as being rauchy and the odd NSFW picture. Are any of our legal beagles concerned that when a future president (if there is one) calls them to serve in a federal court, their past contributions here will be scrutinized?