I recently criticized The Good Wife for its portrayal of judges as arrogant and pompous fools and idiots, so you might suspect that if fictitious judges upset me, a real federal judge sending a racist email against President Obama would put me over the top, and it did.
The content of the email was not even borderline racist; even the judge acknowledged it as being so. The New York Times describes the forwarded joke "as involving suggestions of bestiality and the president's mother." Although admitting and recognizing its nature, Judge Richard F. Cebull (Montana) suggests that his motives were political in nature rather than racist, and to his credit, apologized to the president and invited an investigation.
But what next? The facts are undisputed. The email was racist; its content despicable. It was forwarded by a sitting federal judge, indeed the chief judge of the district. Is this a wrong that can be righted by an apology? The judge was engaged in a form of political activity in which he should not have been. Judges should not be expressing their political views or opposition to the president particularly through government channels. Judges should not participate in partisan politics. Added to that is the out-and-out bigotry of the email. Even accepting the judge's claim that he forwarded the email for its political (anti-Obama views) rather than its racist content, he condoned it.
But even accepting the judge's apology, his motive and explanation, can he remain on the court? Part of me feels sympathy for him. Because of this single, stupid mistake, his judicial career may be over. On the other hand, lawyers and litigants, both past and present, may wonder whether or not this incident reflects a more deep-seated bigotry and prejudice -- both political and racial. Has it or will it affect decisions made or to be made? My objection to judicial elections and contributions to judicial candidates by lawyers and litigants has always been, not only the risk of actual influence, but the perception of it by the public. The question is not whether or not the judge is a racist, but whether or not he is or will be perceived as one.
There is talk of hearings and possible impeachment proceedings, but this is not an issue to be decided by others. Judge Cebull should decide what is best for the judiciary and the public's perception of it. The past is undisputed. The future is his to make.
Some analogies occur to me in the entertainment world, where clients often seem to seek out agencies with conflicting interests in hopes of putting something copyrighted together that will benefit everybody. To me, the analogy breaks down where (1) there's no clearly new value created, and/or (2) there are unwilling participants - you don't have to go to a movie, but you can't opt out of the economy as long as you pay taxes.
Then the mother answers saying, (this is we're the beastiality reference comes in).... "Don't even go there Barack, from what I remember about the party, you are lucky you don't bark".
So, I read this And I gather that the judge...sorry I meant Joke.... is insinuating that white women will s#%w anything- including black men and dogs.
So, Now what should he be labeled as -- a Woman Hatin, Racist, Dog lover??? Oh yeah, and it's obvious he has an Oedipus complex....since the joke "touched his heart".
What makes anyone think he has improperly used his office in any way. He has broken no laws. I refuse to see why anyone should resign from their post based on one off color and poor joke. It does not mean he's a racist or he can not be impartial on the bench.
As for my question in regards to Clinton, yes he was impeeched by the house and saved by a democrat controlled senate. However, what everyone forgets is Clinton was found guilty of perjury and stripped of his law licence for 5 years. If we go by your standard that judges be held to a higher standard, then what about the president. Clinton should have stepped down based upon your idea. The point is we had a president, who after taking an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of our country. He then later broke those laws and committed pergury. For that he should have stepped down, as he not only committed a crime, but broke his oath.
I disagree. Anyone with the discretion of a Judge Cebull, should not be deciding anything for anyone. The idea that he would be the best 'judge' of his own behavior is reminiscent of Alan Greenspan's comment that he really thought Wall Street could govern themselves (after the Wall Street crash). Or perhaps it is inspired by the AMA's belief that doctors are the best choice to 'police' other doctors. Problem there is that without any deterrent (i. e. massive lawsuits), by the time a doctors (or judges') lack of judgement is discovered it is too late for somebody.
I SENT A RACIST EMAIL ABOUT BARACK OBAMA
I disagree. These are similar "famous last words" of others in similar situations. Alan Greenspan after the Wall Street debacle saying "I really thought Wall Street could govern itself." He was obviously mistaken to the detriment of every person in the US who had ever owned stock or real estate. And what about the AMA wanting Dr's to oversee Dr's. I'm not saying that malpractice lawsuits aren't out of hand, however, given that most Dr's wont testify against another Dr (even if the latter is obviously in the wrong), it would seem obvious that the policing MUST be done by an outside group. I see no difference with the judiciary. After all, isn't it just another "Good ol' boys club, too"? The problem with leaving the decision with Jude Cebull is that there is no guarantee that he will make the right decision, and a wrong decision will affect too many others in a very negative way. You cannot 'un-ring' a bell.
How could any attorney properly allow his client's matter to go before Judge Cebull?
There are hundreds of Anti-Obama facts and comments this Judge could have sent to show his political leanings, instead of what he did send.
And yes, the cases Cebull presided over should be independently reviewed for indications of bias.