5 ms·
I was shocked at the casual racism emanating from the bench. The judge explained a “stay away” order to a Hispanic defendant by saying that if the complainan
by kafkaesq 10y ago
I was shocked at the casual racism emanating from the bench. The judge explained a “stay away” order to a Hispanic defendant by saying that if the complainant calls and invites you over for “rice and beans,” you cannot go. She lectured some defendants that most young men “with names like yours” have lengthy criminal records by the time they reach a certain age.
Thereby instantly disqualifying herself from the privilege of serving on the bench. Ample grounds for impeachment, by any reasonable standard.
- billh 10y agoJust to give you an idea of how difficult it is to actually impeach a judge, only fifteen(15) Federal judges have been successfully impeached in the entire history of the United States.[1] 1. http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impeachments.html http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impeachments...
- alkonaut 10y agoShouldn't have to be so drastic as impeachment; it would be enough that judges and other staff are watched and their performance reviewed. This judge clearly should get a stern warning that racism will not be tolerated. Repeat offenders should simply be fired. They are employees that have superiors after all.
- jrochkind1 10y agoNope, federal judges are not "employees that have superiors" they are civil officers of the united states whose appointments are approved by the Senate. Impeachment is the only way to 'fire' a federal judge. I suppose the plus side of this is that the government can't fire them for political reasons or because they don't like their judgements. Without impeachment anyway. A federal judge does not have a 'superior'.
- alkonaut 10y agoThanks for that explanation. Sounds completely broken if only 15 were ever impeached (assuming a lot more than 15 were likely bad apples). Even a short clip of obvious racism should result in impeachment as you can't be fit to serve as a judge if you don't consider everyone equal. Judges should be hard to replace (see e.g Turkey right now) - but peer review based bonuses or some kind of measure to get rid of bad behavior seems like a reasonable compromise.
- ufmace 10y agoUh, I think you have a deep misunderstanding of how the Government is meant to work here. The Judicial is a branch of Government on-par with Legislative and Executive that is intentionally meant to be sovereign from public influence except for limited checks and balances by the other branches. Opinions like yours are the exact reason why. The idea that anyone who ever utters anything that could possibly be interpreted as being slightly racist should be burned at the stake is just one political fad among many others that have came and went over the years. As well as the Gestapo-like idea that anybody who offers any resistance to the idea that anybody deemed to be racist must be burnt at the stake should also be burnt at the stake. And the primary reason why judges cannot be removed easily is to protect them from political fads exactly like that. If you deem that your favorite fad is "special" somehow, then the next one will be as well, and the next one too, and that protection becomes worthless. And that quoted statement is not obvious racism. It was condescending and insulting, but not racist, except in the most mild sense. Actually racist would be "I am sentencing you to an extra 5 years because you are Hispanic, and Hispanics cannot control their impulses".
- jrochkind1 10y agoNot obvious racism? Are we talking about this: > She lectured some defendants that most young men “with names like yours” have lengthy criminal records by the time they reach a certain age. I think that's pretty obvious racism. By "with names like yours", we agree she means Latinos, right? I think it's racist to say in court that most Latinos have lengthy criminal records, and the judge probably knows it or they wouldn't have used the (totally transparent and pro forma) euphemism "with names like yours."
- dllthomas 10y agoA lot of judges are elected.
- dredmorbius 10y agoNot U.S. Federal judges.
- dllthomas 10y agoTrue, but (unless I miss something, stated or implied) possibly the judge under discussion?
- kafkaesq 10y agoOh I didn't think it'd be easy. I just meant like, morally speaking.
- cookiecaper 10y agoPersonally I don't think that snarky comments should be grounds for impeachment. What's important is what's happening, not that the judge says "rice and beans" instead of "sandwiches". Let's keep our priorities straight, lest we get our fill of accomplishment by controlling others' speech instead of improving conduct.
- jrochkind1 10y agoSure, and what's happening is many many criminal defendents are not getting just due process. It so happens that there is a correlation (not universal, but a correlation) with race and whether you get fair treatment in court though. I think it actually goes beyond judges just 'not liking' black people or latinos though, it's an issue of the structure of our society, not just bigotry in judges. But those bigoted comments from judges do give a hint that this is certainly not something that has nothing to do with race.
- johnnyhillbilly 10y agoWith the information given, I can't see how you reach that conclusion? Being invited for rice and beans is quite common in some cultures, just as being invited for coffee and cake is in others. It is obviously an example the judge thought would make it clear for the person upon whom the restrictions were placed: "This is no longer for either of you to decide - be careful so you don't get set up." About the names: It could be nicknames, it could be names common in a militant (i.e. political) subculture. There is no information what was meant - only the conclusion that it was racist. About the physical standards of the building, and the assembly line of verdicts: That is something to fix! (Also this clumsy confusion of 'pen' for 'pentitentiary' and 'pen' for 'farm animal enclosure' should be corrected with a new sign.)