Mark B. Cohen spent 42 years as a Pennsylvania House Democrat before getting himself appointed to the Philadelphia bench in 2018. Then he kept posting on Facebook like he was still running for office — more than 60 posts between 2021 and 2022 promoting Democratic policies, minimum wage increases, and elective abortion rights. One post, dated November 20, 2022, defended Joe Biden's cognitive fitness: "Many people his age is impaired. But he has proven to be an excellent President."
On October 7, the U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition to review the case. Docket 25-1215 is closed.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had already upheld Cohen's discipline, citing the "Commonwealth's interest in preserving confidence in an independent and impartial judiciary." The state's Judicial Conduct Board had a blunter description for what Cohen was doing from the bench: "partisan cheerleading."
The penalties weren't symbolic. Cohen lost his judicial position. He lost his judicial pension. He lost his prior public service pension — the one tied to those 42 years in the state legislature. Four decades of accumulated retirement benefits, gone because he couldn't stop campaigning after he put on the robe.
Cohen filed his petition back in April, asking the Supreme Court to intervene after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against him. The argument, presumably, was that his Facebook posts were protected speech. The Supreme Court's answer was one word long: denied.
The posts weren't borderline cases. Cohen wasn't liking a friend's political meme or sharing a news article with a vague caption. He was promoting specific Democratic policy positions — the same positions he'd championed as a legislator — while serving as a sitting judge. He carried an "F" rating from the National Rifle Association, which might have been a badge of honor in the statehouse but becomes a flashing neon sign of bias on the bench.
Governor Josh Shapiro and District Attorney Larry Krasner were among the political figures Cohen engaged with through his social media activity during the period in question. The pattern wasn't a judge who accidentally wandered into politics. It was a politician who never stopped being one.
The Judicial Conduct Board's phrase — "partisan cheerleading" — does the work here. Not "occasional lapses in judgment." Not "ill-advised social media activity." Cheerleading. The kind of thing you do when you've picked a side and want everyone to know it.
Judges across the country spent years issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump administration policies while insisting their rulings had nothing to do with politics. Cohen just said the quiet part out loud — 60 times, in writing, on a public platform. The difference between Cohen and a dozen other judges isn't the bias. It's the paper trail.
As reported by 100PercentFedUp.com, the Supreme Court's denial on October 7 closes every door. No further appeal. No reconsideration. No pension.
Forty-two years in the legislature. A judgeship. A retirement. Sixty-some Facebook posts.