A RESOLUTION censuring Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Kelly Thompson for his intemperate remarks that threatened attorneys and legislators participating in pending impeachment proceedings with professional discipline and criminal prosecution, and directing a complaint to be filed against him with the Judicial Conduct Commission.
Summary
SR305 is a Senate resolution censuring Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Kelly Thompson for statements made in a concurring opinion related to an impeachment dispute involving Circuit Judge Julie Muth Goodman. The resolution says Thompson’s remarks threatened attorneys and legislators involved in impeachment proceedings with professional discipline and criminal prosecution, and it characterizes those remarks as intemperate and inappropriate for a judicial officer.
The resolution also directs the Director of the Legislative Research Commission to file a complaint against Justice Thompson with the Judicial Conduct Commission and to attach the resolution to that complaint. In effect, SR305 does not amend the criminal code or judicial ethics statutes directly, but it formally expresses the Senate’s disapproval and initiates a disciplinary complaint process through the state’s judicial conduct system.
Impact
SR305 affects the political and disciplinary relationship between the General Assembly and the judiciary rather than changing substantive law. It formally censures a sitting Kentucky Supreme Court justice and instructs legislative staff to file a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission, potentially triggering review under judicial ethics and discipline procedures. The resolution also reinforces the Senate’s position that the General Assembly’s impeachment authority should not be constrained by the court in the manner described in the resolution.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have strong support in the Senate, as reflected by its adoption by voice vote. The tone of the resolution is sharply critical of Justice Thompson and of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s involvement in the impeachment matter, indicating that supporters viewed the remarks as an improper threat to legislative and legal participants. No opposing committee testimony or recorded vote details are provided in the available context, but the resolution’s language suggests a highly charged and adversarial atmosphere.
Contention
The main point of contention is Justice Thompson’s concurring opinion, especially his references to possible KBA discipline and criminal liability for attorneys or others involved in impeachment proceedings. Supporters of SR305 view those statements as threats to constitutional rights, protected speech, and the legislature’s impeachment powers. The resolution also criticizes the Supreme Court’s broader opinion as an improper intrusion into a matter the Senate says belongs exclusively to the General Assembly, suggesting a separation-of-powers dispute between the legislative and judicial branches.