6 ms·

Just 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 hist

by billh 10y ago

Just 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 ago
Shouldn'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 ago
  Nope, 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 ago
    Thanks 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 ago
      Uh, 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 ago
        Not 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."
        nkurz 10y ago
        By "with names like yours", we agree she means Latinos, right? Well, no. When I read the article the first time, I presumed she was talking about Black non-Hispanic Americans with Africanized names. Re-reading, I see that this wasn't stated either, but I still read "some defendants" as contrasting rather amplifying the previous use of "a Hispanic defendant". It's possible you are right, but it's far from "pretty obvious". The Bronx is sufficiently multicultural that I'm sure there are groups I've scarcely heard of who have widely held prejudices against groups that I'd never even guess. I think you, and I, and probably everyone who wasn't in that courtroom are reading things into the account based on our own preconceptions. Racism is one explanation, and likely at least partially present, but I don't think there is any way to know how from this short account how much of a role it plays. For example, what race do you picture the "racist" judge as? Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish? What about the court officers laughing at the "young man" with his pants around his ankles? I don't know, but I wouldn't be startled if both the humiliators and humiliated belt-less defendant were all of African origin, or Spanish speaking, or both. And what about the "85-pound drug addict who was arrested because she was in a park after hours" or the "pale, slight, and visibly anxious" woman there for a protective order? Is there any reason to presume that judge's lack of sympathy for either of these two was because race? As the old joke goes, does it count as racial prejudice you hate all minorities equally? So no, it's not "obvious racism", unless we start by assuming that racism is the only reason that one person would mistreat another. I mean, doesn't proof of "racism" at least require showing that the judge treats members of one race better than those of another? Is there any evidence of this in the story? If not, why do we call it "racism" rather than "prejudice", or just "hate"?
    - jrochkind1 10y ago
      Who is the 'superior' that can fire a senator or congressperson? A president? Which isn't to say the system can't be reviewed. Perhaps theoretically we could imagine some system of peer review that would be useful. But it's crucial that judges have political independence and can't get fired for making unpopular rulings or rulings not liked by those in power. "Bonuses"? Judges don't get bonuses. And I have trouble imagining any system of 'bonuses' for judges that would steer clear of encouraging politically (in any sense of the word) motivated rulings. Although the judges in this article actually _weren't_ federal judges, were they?
- dllthomas 10y ago
  A lot of judges are elected.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Not U.S. Federal judges.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      True, but (unless I miss something, stated or implied) possibly the judge under discussion?
kafkaesq 10y ago
Oh I didn't think it'd be easy. I just meant like, morally speaking.

by billh 10y ago

alkonaut 10y ago

Shouldn'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 ago
Nope, 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 ago
  Thanks 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 ago
    Uh, 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 ago
      Not 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."
      - nkurz 10y ago
        By "with names like yours", we agree she means Latinos, right? Well, no. When I read the article the first time, I presumed she was talking about Black non-Hispanic Americans with Africanized names. Re-reading, I see that this wasn't stated either, but I still read "some defendants" as contrasting rather amplifying the previous use of "a Hispanic defendant". It's possible you are right, but it's far from "pretty obvious". The Bronx is sufficiently multicultural that I'm sure there are groups I've scarcely heard of who have widely held prejudices against groups that I'd never even guess. I think you, and I, and probably everyone who wasn't in that courtroom are reading things into the account based on our own preconceptions. Racism is one explanation, and likely at least partially present, but I don't think there is any way to know how from this short account how much of a role it plays. For example, what race do you picture the "racist" judge as? Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish? What about the court officers laughing at the "young man" with his pants around his ankles? I don't know, but I wouldn't be startled if both the humiliators and humiliated belt-less defendant were all of African origin, or Spanish speaking, or both. And what about the "85-pound drug addict who was arrested because she was in a park after hours" or the "pale, slight, and visibly anxious" woman there for a protective order? Is there any reason to presume that judge's lack of sympathy for either of these two was because race? As the old joke goes, does it count as racial prejudice you hate all minorities equally? So no, it's not "obvious racism", unless we start by assuming that racism is the only reason that one person would mistreat another. I mean, doesn't proof of "racism" at least require showing that the judge treats members of one race better than those of another? Is there any evidence of this in the story? If not, why do we call it "racism" rather than "prejudice", or just "hate"?
  - jrochkind1 10y ago
    Who is the 'superior' that can fire a senator or congressperson? A president? Which isn't to say the system can't be reviewed. Perhaps theoretically we could imagine some system of peer review that would be useful. But it's crucial that judges have political independence and can't get fired for making unpopular rulings or rulings not liked by those in power. "Bonuses"? Judges don't get bonuses. And I have trouble imagining any system of 'bonuses' for judges that would steer clear of encouraging politically (in any sense of the word) motivated rulings. Although the judges in this article actually _weren't_ federal judges, were they?
dllthomas 10y ago
A lot of judges are elected.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Not U.S. Federal judges.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    True, but (unless I miss something, stated or implied) possibly the judge under discussion?

kafkaesq 10y ago

Oh I didn't think it'd be easy. I just meant like, morally speaking.