March 3, 2012
"Blinded by the Hate: The Real Problem With Judge Cebull's Email"
Not surprisingly, two prior posts (here and here) discussing the controversies surrounding Chief District Judge Cebull's unjudicious decision to forward a racially charged e-mail have generated lots of heated and interesting discussion in the comments. I suspect this new commentary from The Huffington Post by Michael Keegan, the President of People For the American Way, which shares a headline with the title of this post, will likewise get folks buzzing. Here are excerpts:
Earlier this week a Great Falls Tribune reporter found something startling in his inbox: a shockingly racist and misogynistic email forwarded from the most powerful federal judge in Montana, which "joked" that the president of the United States was the product of his mother having sex with a dog. The story soon became national news, with groups like ours calling on Judge Richard Cebull to resign.
Cebull quickly apologized to the president and submitted himself to a formal ethics review, somewhat quelling the story. But the story is about more than one judge doing something wildly inappropriate and deeply disturbing. It's about a conservative movement in which the bile and animosity directed at the president -- and even his family -- are so poisonous that even someone who should know better easily confuses political criticism and sick personal attack. Come on: going after the president's late mother?...
Judge Cebull is hardly alone in using the old "I'm not racist, but..." line. In fact, his email was the result of an entire movement built on "I'm not racist, but..." logic that equates disagreement with and dislike of the president with broad-based, racially charged smears. These smears, tacitly embraced by the GOP establishment, are more than personal shots at the president -- they're attacks on the millions of Americans who make up our growing and changing country.
Mainstream conservatives have genuine objections to President Obama's priorities and policies. But since he started running for president, a parallel movement has sprung up trying to paint Obama as an outsider and an imposter -- in unmistakably racially charged terms....
Judge Cebull needs to take responsibility for his own actions. And if the GOP has any aspirations of providing real leadership to this country, it needs to jettison the deeply personal vitriol being direct against Barack Obama and start talking about real issues. When a federal judge has seen so much racially-charged propaganda against the president of the United States that he can claim not to know the difference between genuine disagreement and offensive personal smears, something in our discourse has gone terribly awry.
Recent related posts:
- Should Congress investigate federal judge who forwarded racially charged email about President Obama?
- Apologies, inquiries and calls for resignation involving Chief Judge Cebull
March 3, 2012 at 02:48 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Blinded by the Hate: The Real Problem With Judge Cebull's Email":
thank you, Doug, for posting the article. It is well stated and exposes the email for what it is, which is certainly not a harmless joke, but rather an revelation of the judge's soul.
Posted by: bruce cunningham | Mar 3, 2012 3:31:17 PM
Bruce stated: "thank you, Doug, for posting the article. It is well stated and exposes the email for what it is, which is certainly not a harmless joke, but rather an revelation of the judge's soul..."
Let me finish your thought: "...unless it is Al Sharpton, Robert Byrd, or Jesse Jackson, et al. and then it is just a momentary lapse in judgment or a youthful indiscretion."
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 3, 2012 5:05:06 PM
I posted my agreement with you previously, however, that article is not current and may not be revisited.
In that thread, Federalist said the judge is "only human" and he is "not perfect." I will grant that humans are not perfect. However, a person who is not appalled by a "joke" insinuating that African Americans are products of human/dog relationships. A person who seems to feel it is alright to be disrespectful of the President of the United States who is Black. And a person who would pass along that type of "joke" which signals his agreement with the sentiment, cannot be in a position where he must judge whether a Black youth with x amount of drugs should go to prison, while a white youth with the same amount should be sentenced to probation. Many of the same people who send out those types of "jokes" also believe all Black people are criminals, and if they didn't commit the offense at hand, they probably did something that justifies an unfair and wrongful conviction. This is not to say the Judge is a bad person. It is only to say that he is in the wrong job. There are thousands of jobs that he could qualify for where it wouldn't matter a bit what his views of those not like him are. Being a Chief Federal Judge simply is not one.
Posted by: saintswriter | Mar 3, 2012 5:08:07 PM
TarisQtr, if Al Sharpton, Robert Byrd, or Jesse Jackson ever sent out emails denigrating another racial group, or if they showed bias toward another ethnic group (which is different than defending the liberties of their own group, or decrying racist practices (here I cannot speak for Robert Byrd) then I certainly would object to any of them ever becoming a Chief Federal Judge. I'm not saying you have to like Black people or other ethnic groups to be a judge -- I'm just saying you cannot be a judge and have preconceived prejudices and stereotypical judgements against another group, because then you couldn't be fair and unbiased in your rulings. Granted, there are probably hundreds of judges who secretly harbor racists thoughts and those thoughts probably come out in their rulings, but they didn't publicize their racism by forwarding an email, so we can only say they, too, are not fit for the position of judge, we just don't know who they are.
Posted by: saintswriter | Mar 3, 2012 5:26:39 PM
Stick to the point. The issue is whether X is bad. That Y is also bad is not relevant.
Posted by: Dave from Texas | Mar 3, 2012 5:28:59 PM
It looks like the false equivilency troll brigade is already out - don't be fooled from them, all they want to do is distract from this sexist and racist judge. Their entire argument is basically summed up as "its okay if you are Republican" but because Fox News hasn't told us how to spin this yet we are simply going to claim that Democrats are the real racists. They are nothing but trolls and talking points parrots and they contribute nothing of value to any discussion.
Posted by: virginia | Mar 3, 2012 5:40:50 PM
If? You have not been paying attention for the last 20 years (140 years in Byrd's case). Ever hear of "hymietown?" Was that uttered to defend the "liberties" of JJ's own group or to denigrate Jews? Byrd did much worse than make statements (used the "N" word just a couple of years before he died) but was a leader of the KKK. Don't even get me on Sharpton on Tawana or such lovely comments as "diamond merchants."
Yet, not only are/were these people allowed to keep their job, they are/were revered by the progressive mafia.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 3, 2012 7:00:30 PM
"Stick to the point. The issue is whether X is bad. That Y is also bad is not relevant."
Sure it is relevant because you want to play by different rules than you hold others to. Does it make the judge "right?" Absolutely not. However, it does place a spotlight on the progressive mafia's hypocrisy and motives.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 3, 2012 7:03:19 PM
You would not know the truth if you tripped over it. Please show me one post from any of the three threads on this topic where I stated or implied "its okay if you are Republican".
In fact, I defended Sonia Sotomayor's ability to serve on SCOTUS in the other thread against the "wise latina" comment.
Great use of Alinsky's tactics though. Complain about "Fox News" Republicans, while you bathe in the gutter of MSNBC and Huff Post. Rail against "talking point parrots", while all of your posts could have been lifted whole cloth from Media Matters.
You are the one living under a bridge.
And I can't help but get a hardy chuckle that in the last thread you stated: "this is the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from someone wearing a white robe and pointed hood - not a federal judge"
Yet, I bet there is nothing from you written anywhere on this big blue orb with words on it nearly as forceful to a long-time Democrat US Senator that DID wear a "white robe and pointed hood." Yet, I am the partisan hack? Too funny.
Now, as the paragon of virtue and honesty you apparently believe you are (in contrast to us dishonest talking point parrot Republicans), I am sure you will want to get right on finding that quote of me defending this judge because he is a Republican.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 3, 2012 7:21:43 PM
PS No case of false equivalency here whatsoever. There is nothing "equivalent" about a racist email compared to a US Senator that belonged to the same pointy hood and white robe organization that made a habit of lynching blacks. There is nothing "equivalent" about a racist email compared to a couple of charlatans who have gotten rich off of race hustling. There is nothing "equivalent" about the party that freed the slaves compared to the party with the arguably the most racist president ever (Wilson, who progressives still adore)and enslaved the blacks again with Great Society programs.
Again,no equivalency whatsoever.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 3, 2012 7:32:18 PM
Can we stick to the issue of what should be the consequences for Judge Cebull?
Posted by: bruce cunningham | Mar 3, 2012 8:02:11 PM
These words are fighting words. If you insult a man's mother, daughter, or wife with words like this, he may try to beat you with his fists. He might even kill you, which, of course, is at least manslaughter. But if the jury thinks you're a big enough asshole, they might even walk your killer.
Posted by: Fred | Mar 3, 2012 10:26:52 PM
Fred: Fighting words no longer exist in the US, as an excuse to crime. The American male has been totally pussified by the feminist lawyer, and must take not just fighting words, but home invasion, armed robbery. If a victim defends his person, let alone just his honor, he is arrested and tried for murder, goes to prison. The feminist lawyer does not want anything done to its client, the criminal. The criminal is 90% immunized today. There are 20 million Index felonies (serious and real crimes), and 2 million prosecutions, half of which are for paper work defects. There is a 90% chance of committing a crime and never being inconvenienced in any way by the pro-criminal lawyer profession.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 3, 2012 11:41:05 PM
Bruce: Nothing should be done to the judge. Grow up. Stop with the feminist lawyer gotchas. Here is why.
If you are an ordinary person, you have committed 12 crimes today, perhaps without any knowledge of doing so. If I were your adversary, I would use these against you, and disqualify you and all other adverse lawyers and judges. If I keep doing that, clients will no longer want you. I can do that every day, all day, forever. If I do it because we disagree on politics, that is morally reprehensible. You should stop doing that lawyer gotcha because it is unseemly, and unfair.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 3, 2012 11:45:46 PM
Supremacy Claus at 11.41 P.M.: "Fighting words no longer exist in the US, as an excuse to crime."
Agreed. Juries will be expressly instructed in this regard. Yet victims who are assholes are not viewed as sympathetically by juries as other victims, notwithstanding a court's instructions to the contrary.
I will leave it to the other commenters here as to whether this judge was a racist, a sexist, or a misogynist. Regardless of whether he is or is not any or the foregoing, he is an asshole.
Posted by: Fred | Mar 4, 2012 12:00:39 AM
I don't understand the political value in going nuclear on this topic. Is it because it's an election year? Look, the guy did something disgustful but turning one incident into a major smear of the conservative movement is uncalled for. If we want more enlightened discourse let's start with ourselves and lead by example.
I disagree when outliers lead to stupid laws like "Jessica's Law" and I object when one e-mail gets turned into the next Watergate.
Posted by: justmeagain | Mar 4, 2012 12:36:55 AM
I think Rush Limbaugh's recent troubles are an interesting contrast to Judge Cebull's.
Both involve someone casting aspersions on the virtue of women. Both were designed to appeal to people with base, abject disdain for the targets of the comments. I feel, however, that there is a fundamental difference between Judge Cebull's and Mr. Limbaugh's conduct.
Mr. Limbaugh meant for his comments to be heard by the public, and he intended for Sandra Fluke to know what he said, and he wanted her and people like her to feel insulted and disgraced. He also wanted his listeners to join in the personal debasement of Ms. Fluke and women like her. But Judge Cebull did not write the joke in his e-mail, he forwarded it to only a few people, and he likely did not expect those people to be offended. Rush Limbaugh's comments were far more offensive, specifically because he wanted to offend, and he intended them to be heard by the public at large.
To me, that's a meaningful distinction. In my view, Judge Cebull engaged in the epitome of poor judgment. Though it's clear he has little respect for President Obama, there's no sense in excoriating him for that; while we expect a federal judge to exhibit respect for the president in public, we can't force him to feel that respect in his heart. Judge Cebull should have known better, but there's no reason to believe that he intended to declare to the public, much less to the President or his family, how he felt. The intended recipients of his e-mail likely felt the same way he did already. If he is an unfit judge, then his record will demonstrate that. But for the e-mail, an apology should suffice, in my opinion. Really, does this call for him to give up his career? We'd have a lot of people constantly flitting from one career to another if making an offensive comment in private that inadvertently reached the public was grounds for resignation. I suppose he could, in addition to the apology, do something like donate to a cause that fights racial injustice, but I see no cause to expect him to quit.
I don't expect Rush Limbaugh to quit, either. After all, his career is built on insulting and belittling people who think differently than he does; he's basically a professional bully, but his speech is protected by the First Amendment (arguably, calling Ms. Fluke a prostitute could be slanderous, but I have no idea if his comments meet the legal definition of that term, or whether they would be actionable). But I would expect the people who provide him the forum to spew his bile to think hard about how far he has to go before they become accountable for his vitriol. It is legitimate to ask his sponsors and the stations that carry his show to consider whether they should continue their association with his program, and I think it's entirely appropriate to suggest that people not patronize those businesses.
Posted by: C.E. | Mar 4, 2012 6:41:59 AM
Not only should Judge Cebull be removed immediately from his position as a Federal Judge, but all his previous rulings should be reviewed for racial bias and overturned accordingly. Also he should be disbarred.
Posted by: Lisa | Mar 4, 2012 6:47:38 AM
TarlsQtr, you are intentionally trying to derail any discussion about the judge and the larger point about sexism and racism on the right by throwing out completely irrelevant mentions of what is effectively ancient history. You are doing that because the right has been repeatedly trying to hide their ugly racism and sexism but it constantly pops up mainly because your side is full of racists and sexists. Of course, you try to hide that through what is probably the right's most riduculous argument - that only racial minorities can be racist and that only White people are victims of racism. The fact is that you rightwingers basically prove the point that the right is full of racists and sexists by protesting too much - rather than saying "yes, this judge disgraced himself by sending this racist and sexist joke and yes this is yet another example of indefensible racism and sexism on the right which periodically comes out of the closet" you instead while pretending to not defend the judge are through the lamest possible way.
Here we have undeniable evidence of racism and sexism by a federal judge - the judge admitted he sent the email and gave a non-apology "I'm sorry I got caught" apology you know there is no way you can defend what the judge did - therefore your only response is to effectively say "look a squirel!" and toss out red herrings. By doing that you have lost. That there have been racists in the Democratic Party in the past is not at all relevant to the fact that there are racists in the Republican Party today. The election and nomination of President Obama merely has brought the ugly racism behind the right out to the surface. President Obama isn't even a liberal or a progressive - he's a moderate.
As for what should happen to the judge, Erika's Public Relations Consultants suggests that the judge should release the following statement as the only way to regain his honor:
"Recently I disgraced myself, my office, and my country by sending a dispicable joke about President Obama and his mother. This joke was misogysitc, sexist, and racist. By sending this joke from my official U.S. Government computer and email address, I made it appear like it is an official judicial statement. This may have violated Cannons of Judicial Ethics by creating the appearance of prejudice against minorities and women. Because of this appearance, I can no longer effectively hold the position of judge. In order to restore the honor of the office of Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Montana and my personal honor, I am submitting my resignation effective immediately."
If the judge decides to adopt that statement, all I ask for in return is a generous contribution to Erika's Law School Loan Fund.
Posted by: virginia | Mar 4, 2012 7:37:12 AM
C.E., calling a woman a prostitute - i.e. that she has sex for money - has been slander or libel per se for centuries. Since Rush Limbaugh excplicitly called her a prostitute using that exact word, there is little question that he committed slander per se. In Virginia, it is likely that Limbaugh's statement could lead to a criminal prosecution.
I do not believe that New York Times v. Sullivan or Falwell v. Flynt would alter the equation - it is questionable whether Ms. Fluke would qualify as a public figure and the statement was obviously made at a minimum with reckless disregard for the truth so malice is easy to show. The statement was also not labled parody and so over the top that no reasonable person could believe it - Rush Limbaugh simply said that Ms. Fluke is a prostitute - i.e. having sex for money. That is textbook slander per se.
Of course, that Rush Limbaugh is worse doesn't excuse the judge - mainly because unlike some in his family Rush Limbaugh isn't a federal judge - instead he is a radio shock jock. Radio shock jocks are expected to be "shocking" but some slander and libel settlements are simply the cost of doing business - as long as the advertisers continue to pay, Rush Limbaugh will continue to pollute the airways. Society expects - or should expect - and has the right to expect more out of federal judges. Even in a private communication, sending that email from an official government account on an official government computer disgraced the office of a federal judge and disgraced the judge personally.
Posted by: virginia | Mar 4, 2012 7:51:55 AM
The timing was off.
The "joke", "Other then that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?", is so old it is obsolete.
Posted by: Docile Jim Brady | Mar 4, 2012 8:56:28 AM
As is the "joke": The Mayor of Hiroshima in August 1945: "What the █ █ █ █ was that ?"
Posted by: Docile Jim Brady | Mar 4, 2012 8:59:04 AM
Erika, your defense was pretty weak. Yes, Sotomayor's comment wasn't sexual or gross, but she still linked race to the quality of judicial decisionmaking. You cannot deny that, so you come up with some claptrap nonsense to explain it away. But you can't.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 4, 2012 9:47:45 AM
I'm not really the one to help them or anything, but Republicans really do have to address some of the hate filled rhetoric but playing dirty was their m.o. at least since Lee Atwater, so playing nice might admittedly be hard.
One favored approach is to basically say each side are bad, so it sort of cancels out, but even if that is true (on balance, it is not), that's not really a productive way to go about things. It would not seem too hard for Republicans to be against Obama's policies (except when, um, they have supported them) while making some strong effort to put certain things off limits. It would be a good p.r. move. I don't think this message appeals to some of his critics here, who favor the more "fu" approach.
Posted by: Joe | Mar 4, 2012 12:03:31 PM
Joe, given Obama's "I won." and his exhortation of Latinos to punish their enemies, the idea that the GOP is bad for opposing the guy is counterfactual.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 4, 2012 12:32:22 PM
Erika stated: "TarlsQtr, you are intentionally trying to derail any discussion about the judge and the larger point about sexism and racism on the right by throwing out completely irrelevant mentions of what is effectively ancient history."
Well, no, Senator Byrd only recently left the Senate, both Sharpton and Jackson still have Democrat presidential candidates come kiss their rings, and African-Americans are still bound into slavery by New Deal and Great Society programs. Nothing ancient about that.
You state: "You are doing that because the right has been repeatedly trying to hide their ugly racism and sexism but it constantly pops up mainly because your side is full of racists and sexists."
Ah, yes, the "everybody knows it" logical fallacy...
You state: "Of course, you try to hide that through what is probably the right's most riduculous argument - that only racial minorities can be racist and that only White people are victims of racism."
Really? Where EXACTLY did I say or imply any such thing? Robert Byrd and Woodrow Wilson are white guys, correct? Just like you completely hid behind a rock when I asked you where I defended this judge, you will hide behind the same rock now and never supply a statement from me that is in the same zip code with what you accuse me of. You are beginning to look more and more dishonest. Back it up Erika!
You state: "The fact is that you rightwingers basically prove the point that the right is full of racists and sexists by protesting too much - rather than saying "yes, this judge disgraced himself by sending this racist and sexist joke and yes this is yet another example of indefensible racism and sexism on the right which periodically comes out of the closet" you instead while pretending to not defend the judge are through the lamest possible way."
Actually, it is an example of racism from THIS MAN and this man ONLY. Somehow, in your sick and warped mind, you think that is a defense of him. Again, I NEVER defended his actions other than to say he should not be fired for it, while also saying that Sotomayor should not impeached for her racist comment (and yes, it WAS racist. Imagine if Scalia said a white male had more wisdom than a Latina).
You stated: "Here we have undeniable evidence of racism and sexism by a federal judge - the judge admitted he sent the email and gave a non-apology "I'm sorry I got caught" apology you know there is no way you can defend what the judge did - therefore your only response is to effectively say "look a squirel!" and toss out red herrings."
Sorry, but pointing out your hypocrisy while conducting a witch hunt is not a red herring. It shows your motivation. You had the gall to state that this judge's comment could have come from someone wearing a "white robe and pointy hood" while never uttering a word about a US Senator that ACTUALLY WORE the robe and hood. Why? Because he is on your political "side." What a loathesome and decrepit hack you are. I merely call for fairness. If you want to rid our government of everyone that utters a racist comment, fine, get rid of him. However, let it be a purge that is blind of ideology.
You state: " That there have been racists in the Democratic Party in the past is not at all relevant to the fact that there are racists in the Republican Party today."
Again, you are a hack, not even able to admit that racism is still alive and well in the Democrat party. Say Erika, do you think ending abortion would result in more or fewer black and hispanic babies? And killing them results in fewer, correct? Who called these babies "human weeds?" Wasn't it the despicable Margaret Sanger who Hillary and your ilk see as a hero? Sure, Erika, go on supporting a woman/organization that was founded on the premise of killing minority babies and continue to tell us how Republicans are "racist." You are not even smart enough to see the basic illogic in your own positions.
You stated: "The election and nomination of President Obama merely has brought the ugly racism behind the right out to the surface."
Except, the Hillary Clinton campaign (and Bill)were the ONLY ones that made his race an issue.
Except it was a black Democrat who said he was not truly black.
Except it was his eventual VP that said Obama was "the first black man to run for president who was articulate and clean,"(paraphase) words that are arguably WORSE than what this judge forwarded. Yet, he still sits as the VP.
You stated: "President Obama isn't even a liberal or a progressive - he's a moderate."
LOL And Mao is a "blue dog." It only shows how far left you are when you believe he is a "moderate." When you are left of Hugo, I suppose he is.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 4, 2012 1:20:05 PM
PS Who said:
“I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”
"you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking!”
Barack Obama has a chance to become President because he is "light-skinned" and doesn't speak with a "negro dialect."
"A few years ago, this [Obama] would have been getting us coffee,..."
When you complete the short quiz above, please go on to tell us A) how all of the racists are Republicans; and B) why these people should not be (or have been) removed from their positions in the federal government that are/were MUCH higher than a district court judge.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 4, 2012 1:37:59 PM
Can we stick to the issue of what should be the consequences for Judge Cebull?
bruce cunningham ¦ 03 Mar 12 20:02:11 EST
A fair request, Bruce
DO NOTHING ‼
He should be sanctioned with a PUBLIC REPRIMAND which he has already received !
1535 –0500 Sunday 4 March 2012
Posted by: Docile Jim Brady | Mar 4, 2012 3:37:00 PM
thank you for your opinion, Jim. Although I'll ask you the same question which I asked Joe and he hasn't answered. What if you represent a black defendant who is coming before Judge Cebull and he says he doesn't think he can get a fair hearing and he wants
you to file a motion to recuse the judge. What is your response? File the motion? Defend the Judge? Move to withdraw? Ignore your client? Something else?
Posted by: bruce cunningham | Mar 4, 2012 5:07:50 PM
I don't know if Judge Ceball is a Republican or not. I don't know if he made a mistake by getting caught sending out a racist email. All I know is he thought the joke was funny, he agreed enough to send it to others. If he agrees with a "joke" denigrating a race or people; if he is so disrespectful of the President of the United States that he will imply that he, being Black, is the result of a human/dog relationship; then how can those kinds of prejudices and biases not become a factor when he is on the bench making a ruling? We have no way of gauging whether or not a judge is biased or unbiased except by statements he makes that reveal his personal beliefs. If the judge was a dog catcher, a football player or even a private attorney, I would say sending that email was a dumb mistake, he's probably a racist, next? However, since he is a federal chief justice (which by the way Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not, and I'd never defend Robert Byrd for any reason whatsoever). then his actions reveal that he is not qualified for a job that requires unbiased judgement. I agree 100% with Erica that throwing in politics, comparing what others have done, etc., is skirting the issue. Is the man qualified to judge without prejudice, without bias? In my opinion, NO! He should sign the letter that Erica has so eloquently written for him - and then find a job where he can send out racists emails to his heart's content without fear of reprisal.
Posted by: saintswriter | Mar 4, 2012 6:20:18 PM
Another angle to this is anonymous chain political emails. I am sure everyone here has at some some time during the past 15 years received one. I have a relative in my extended family who believes that it is his job to raise the political consciousness of our family. I have never forwarded any I have I received, but I have read some. Without exception, they are all ignorant BS.
As to this judge, has he routinely been the recipient of anonymous chain political emails? And has he routinely forwarded them? As to the first question, if he has then he is no different from me. But as to the second question, if he routinely forwards them, then he's not just an asshole, he's an ignorant asshole.
Posted by: Fred | Mar 4, 2012 7:16:34 PM
That's odd, I seem to remember people on both sides of the political divide making similarly lame excuses, including Democrats ie 'it's ok if one of ours says something misogynistic that we'd never take it from a Republican because we're so progressive he clearly doesn't mean it'.
Posted by: MikeinCT | Mar 4, 2012 8:18:34 PM
TQ: ...Again, you are a hack, not even able to admit that racism is still alive and well in the Democrat [sic] party. Say Erika, do you think ending abortion would result in more or fewer black and hispanic babies? And killing them results in fewer, correct? Who called these babies "human weeds?" Wasn't it the despicable Margaret Sanger who Hillary and your ilk see as a hero? Sure, Erika, go on supporting a woman/organization that was founded on the premise of killing minority babies and continue to tell us how Republicans are "racist." You are not even smart enough to see the basic illogic in your own positions...
Response: What does all this this have to do with Judge Cebull's email?
Posted by: C | Mar 4, 2012 10:56:47 PM
Fred: Here. A grandfather is protecting neighbor, family, self. The thugs who are agents of the prosecutor, arrest him, not the burglar. I would like to see the police, a nothing but worthless government workers join the lawyer prosecutor on the boycott list. No service or product for them, until they get out of the state or die. These are agents of a criminal cult enterprise and all out enemies of the productive male, armed agents of the lawyer profession.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 5, 2012 1:45:26 AM
Stories like the above also put the lie to the lawyer propaganda that crime is decreasing since the end of mandatory guidelines. It is rapidly rising again, and the Obama DOJ is covering it up in its "reworked" and improved measurements.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 5, 2012 1:48:01 AM
i think rush should be so so glad this lady is NOT related to me!
or this would be the least of his problems!
".E., calling a woman a prostitute - i.e. that she has sex for money - has been slander or libel per se for centuries. Since Rush Limbaugh excplicitly called her a prostitute using that exact word, there is little question that he committed slander per se. In Virginia, it is likely that Limbaugh's statement could lead to a criminal prosecution."
He'd be discovering what I think would be funny! See just how far my power swing with an alunimum baseball bat connected with his empty head!
Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 5, 2012 2:58:59 AM
When convictions are tossed out due to Batson violations by prosecutors, i.e., race-based peremptory challenges, the offending prosecutors rarely ever face any consequences.
Who thinks this federal judge will face any consequences beyond the negative publicity?
Posted by: Calif. Capital Defense Atty. | Mar 5, 2012 4:12:15 AM
I do. I think he will be removed from the bench. He has essentially committed judicial suicide.
Posted by: bruce cunningham | Mar 5, 2012 7:43:07 AM
Good morning, Bruce.
by: bruce cunningham
Mar 4, 2012 5:07:50 PM
" … file a motion to recuse the judge. What is your response?"
Perhaps 1. "File the motion?"
Perhaps 2. "Defend the Judge?"
NO 3. "Move to withdraw?"
NO!‼4. "Ignore your client?"
YES 5. "Something else?"
First I would discuss the issue with client and suggest an in camera meeting with judge and prosecution.
If agreed, I would meet with judge and prosecution and admit there was concern by my client and gauge the feelings of the judge and prosecution.
I would like to know the judge's demeanor and how he handles cases similar to my client's.
If he recused, continue forward.
If he recused not, continue with client:
I would fully discuss the pros/cons of filing a motion to recuse with my client. Judges can favorably respond.
If the client wanted the motion filed and I saw no harm, I would file.
Again, excellent questions.
I believe there is no "pat" answer for all cases and judges.
I'm white and worked as a clerk for a Black (he was NOT born on the African continent) civil rights lawyer.
He repeatedly told me "All you white folks sound alike."
Our commonality was we both knew he was joking and both laughed. We had known each other for ten years though.
ACHTUNG! for some, not all:
☺Conditional clause coming☺
►I∙F I W∙E∙R∙E a federal judge and W∙E∙R∙E to forward the subject joke, I would delete the name out of joke, to make it generic.
I personally have observed uncommon behavior by some who have seriously over-imbibed alcohol or other mind altering drugs.
The late then Professor Oliver W. Holmes wisely observed in the latter part of the 19th Century, that even a dog can distinguish between being stumbled over and being kicked.
I respectfully maintain that the judge stumbled and did not kick.
DJB/WBA (Wannabe Benevolent Anarchist)
Non-violent Hate Mail →PO Box 91018
Columbus, Oh 43209-7018
614 579 5402 Mobile (no death threats, please)
JimBrady@Safe-mail.net for civil discussion.
Former member ACLU and NAACP (decades ago)
Current Associate Member Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
►Typing ONLY for DJB and not ACLU ¦ NAACP ¦ OACDL
Posted by: Docile Jim Brady | Mar 5, 2012 10:13:13 AM
I hate to get off the popular topics, but thought I would comment on the Jduges email.
I think he made a comment to some friends and sent it out to a select few.
Someone wanted to push him, so they made it public to the world...He has admitted his response wasn't the best for a judge.
No harm, no foul....Some of you are really blood thirsty....
This should blow over as does any other hete debate over people in a position
of power....I would hope the good judge continues on and has some fun in life.
Let it go Louie, let it go...( bud commercial a good decade ago)
Posted by: Midwest Guy | Mar 5, 2012 11:05:46 AM
And one noticed your failure to address the hate from the judge in Pennsylvania who told a crime victim that he must submit to Muslim sensebilities. It is clear you have an agenda contrary to free speech.
Posted by: Federale | Mar 5, 2012 1:58:29 PM
It has been reported that the judge in PA is in fact, not a lawyer. While I am not defending the PA judge's rant, I do not find it the least bit surprising that a non-lawyer judge would not be particularly well-versed on the First Amendment's meaning. Surely we can expect better from a federal judge.
One more thing about the PA judge - any chance he understands Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment law any better than the does the First Amendment?
Posted by: C | Mar 5, 2012 2:42:40 PM
C stated: "Response: What does all this this have to do with Judge Cebull's email?"
A lot. It is a witch hunt perpetrated by loathesome hacks like Erika who do not care one bit about the racist email, only an opportunity to have a Republican thrown from the bench. This is illutsrated even further by her complete failure to support her accusations against me.
Again, what the judge said was racist and misogynistic. I personally do not feel that we should be firing our government employees over private statements (even if on a public computer). However, I would have virtually no heartburn to see him removed from office IF A) my fellow countrymen decided otherwise, and B) we held all government employees, or those holding a significant office, to the same standard regardless of party affiliation.
That you cannot see the great harm such double-standards do to our republic amazes me. Then again, I suspect you can see it and support it exactly because it DOES harm to the republic.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 5, 2012 3:33:08 PM
TQ, Judge Cebull is a federal judge whose conduct is governed by a different set of ethical rules and requirements than non-judges. What double standard are you talking about?
Posted by: C | Mar 5, 2012 3:45:21 PM
I saw a really gross joke that went like this: "How does a surgeon handle penis envy? Just hack it off and then say "oops!" Now, if Judge Cebull passed that joke around I would say, "bad joke.' But, what if a surgeon was caught passing around that joke? Should he still remain a surgeon?
TarisQtr said: Again, what the judge said was racist and misogynistic. I personally do not feel that we should be firing our government employees over private statements (even if on a public computer).
It's not a question of whether he was a government employee, whether it was a private joke. The point is, as someone pointed out, he is human. How are we to know that his racism isn't a result of his life-long beliefs, and if he has such poor judgment as to send out a racist email on a government computer, how are we to know whether he can judge the difference between following the rule of law when making a judgment or allowing his racist beliefs to color his judgment and result in an unfair ruling?
If he were a Democrat, if he were African American, it wouldn't matter. By passing around that joke he revealed something in his character that makes his ability to make fair judgments about people he would disparage and denigrate, jokingly, very questionable.
Posted by: saintswriter | Mar 5, 2012 4:00:44 PM
Well, this topic has been beaten to death.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 5, 2012 9:43:04 PM
Federalist: I agree with you...I think most got the cob webs brushed from their feathers on this thread...Lots of energy, + and -
Posted by: Midwest Guy | Mar 6, 2012 3:27:28 PM