There’s a growing scandal in Georgia. Seems a woman federal court judge has been reprimanded for having sex in the courtroom chambers with a male police officer. The sex was duly accompanied by loud, um, sex noises within easy hearing distance of the judge’s staff.

This happened over and over. And over again. For years.

One of the judge’s discomfited clerks reported the matter, and the appellate court conducted an investigation. The judge outright lied to the appellate court investigators, and attacked the clerk who had filed the report.

Unfortunately for the judge, however, the report was corroborated by other staff members. Did I mention that it happened over and over for years?

The appellate court has now issued a Reprimand. The Reprimand states that the judge had:

“an extramarital affair with a law enforcement officer and, in the course of the affair, ha[d] sexual intercourse in the Subject Judge’s office during work hours and within hearing distance of the judge’s clerks.”

The Reprimand went on:

“It is also worth noting the fact that the Subject Judge created a vulnerability to extortion. For two years, the Subject Judge was a federal district judge who routinely heard criminal cases engaged in a secret extramarital relationship with a prominent officer of a large law enforcement agency in the judge’s district—with the affair consisting of sexual intercourse in the Subject Judge’s chambers during working hours.”

“Prominent.” The police officer was “prominent.”

The Reprimand omitted the identity of the judge. But some sleuth work by a respected law professor and legal scholar narrowed it down to one Eleanor Ross, shown above.

It will come as no surprise that Ms. Ross is apparently a friend of Fani Willis, the infamous District Attorney who brought charges against Donald Trump which were ultimately dismissed after her affair with the subordinate prosecutor came to light.

The professor/scholar sleuth contacted the judge for her comment on his sleuthing, and has receive no response.

Having a sordid affair complete with grunts and moans in listening distance of one’s subordinates is grotesque. But what’s weird about this case is that the appellate court chose not to identify the judge. A federal judge had an affair with a person whose credibility could be at issue in cases brought before her, disrupted the operations of the court in a vulgar way, compromised its integrity, and outright lied to investigators — itself a potential federal crime. Yet she still has her job and the public is not even entitled to know her name?

The judge gave a talk years ago under the title “Sense and Sensibility: Civility in the Courtroom.” You can’t make these things up.