4 ms·

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 Exe

by 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"?
  - nkurz 10y ago
    One young man’s arraignment was particularly unnerving: The ADA noted that the defendant’s “street name” is “Guns and Butter,” and then proceeded to refer to the young man not as “the defendant” or by his given name, but rather as “Mr. Guns and Butter.” The judge made a thinly veiled attempt to hide her giggles, while the court officers made no attempt whatsoever to subdue their outright laughter. So I just looked up "Guns and Butter" to try to understand why someone might have this nickname. To my surprise, the phrase is originally a reference to a macroeconomic model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model The guns versus butter model is an example of a simple production–possibility frontier. It demonstrates the relationship between a nation's investment in defense and civilian goods. Or maybe a 1970's horn-heavy Progressive Rock band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrmPQreXgbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrmPQreXgbA Or 1980's Australian Power Pop / Political Punk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsTisG7-JA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsTisG7-JA And 2000's American String Band Resurgence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCKHbYEDiNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCKHbYEDiNg But I'm guessing this scene from Baby Boy is probably a more likely direct reference, but who really knows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga8o9eepj5s&t=40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga8o9eepj5s&t=40 This then gets remixed by a number of Hiphop DJ's. I think I like this one best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OboHRT5-Ss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OboHRT5-Ss It's even got Youtube parodies at this point, complete with reference to Gangnam Style as an example of "Butter": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXHHlURvYg&t=105 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXHHlURvYg&t=105 It's also the name of a radical leftist radio show on Pacifica: http://www.gunsandbutter.org/about.htm http://www.gunsandbutter.org/about.htm I wonder if any of the people giggling in the courtroom knew any of these references, or whether they were just laughing at the guy. I wonder if they would have cared. I wonder if the defendant himself even knew why people called him "Guns and Butter". I hope so.
  - jrochkind1 10y ago
    > Well, no. When I read the article the first time, I presumed she was talking about Black non-Hispanic Americans with Africanized names. Okay, still racist. > 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? Not much. > As the old joke goes, does it count as racial prejudice you hate all minorities equally? Yes.
alkonaut 10y ago
I didn't refer to the quotes from the article as being that racist, I meant that there are likely examples of times when a judge has acted less than ideally - but not bad enough for impeachment. Racism isn't a political fad though - it's contrary to the idea that everyone is equal under the law. That is a theme that is at least as central to democracy as the separation between judicial and legislative. Just like you say the judicial branch must be well protected and no kind of political influence can exist. This is why peer review could work. If a judge is condescending and insulting something has to go. The protection of the judicial from the legislative is important but not important enough that one can shrug at judges that can't do their jobs.

by ufmace 10y ago

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"?
- nkurz 10y ago
  One young man’s arraignment was particularly unnerving: The ADA noted that the defendant’s “street name” is “Guns and Butter,” and then proceeded to refer to the young man not as “the defendant” or by his given name, but rather as “Mr. Guns and Butter.” The judge made a thinly veiled attempt to hide her giggles, while the court officers made no attempt whatsoever to subdue their outright laughter. So I just looked up "Guns and Butter" to try to understand why someone might have this nickname. To my surprise, the phrase is originally a reference to a macroeconomic model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model The guns versus butter model is an example of a simple production–possibility frontier. It demonstrates the relationship between a nation's investment in defense and civilian goods. Or maybe a 1970's horn-heavy Progressive Rock band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrmPQreXgbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrmPQreXgbA Or 1980's Australian Power Pop / Political Punk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsTisG7-JA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsTisG7-JA And 2000's American String Band Resurgence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCKHbYEDiNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCKHbYEDiNg But I'm guessing this scene from Baby Boy is probably a more likely direct reference, but who really knows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga8o9eepj5s&t=40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga8o9eepj5s&t=40 This then gets remixed by a number of Hiphop DJ's. I think I like this one best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OboHRT5-Ss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OboHRT5-Ss It's even got Youtube parodies at this point, complete with reference to Gangnam Style as an example of "Butter": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXHHlURvYg&t=105 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXHHlURvYg&t=105 It's also the name of a radical leftist radio show on Pacifica: http://www.gunsandbutter.org/about.htm http://www.gunsandbutter.org/about.htm I wonder if any of the people giggling in the courtroom knew any of these references, or whether they were just laughing at the guy. I wonder if they would have cared. I wonder if the defendant himself even knew why people called him "Guns and Butter". I hope so.
- jrochkind1 10y ago
  > Well, no. When I read the article the first time, I presumed she was talking about Black non-Hispanic Americans with Africanized names. Okay, still racist. > 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? Not much. > As the old joke goes, does it count as racial prejudice you hate all minorities equally? Yes.

alkonaut 10y ago

I didn't refer to the quotes from the article as being that racist, I meant that there are likely examples of times when a judge has acted less than ideally - but not bad enough for impeachment. Racism isn't a political fad though - it's contrary to the idea that everyone is equal under the law. That is a theme that is at least as central to democracy as the separation between judicial and legislative. Just like you say the judicial branch must be well protected and no kind of political influence can exist. This is why peer review could work. If a judge is condescending and insulting something has to go. The protection of the judicial from the legislative is important but not important enough that one can shrug at judges that can't do their jobs.