If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(STLToday)   Judge writes book about how the liberals are taking over the judicial system, may be removed from the bench for writing such a book   (stltoday.com) divider line 54
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

655 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Dec 2006 at 7:34 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-12-26 04:58:33 PM
The sentiments expressed in chapter 1, which frequently uses the term "femifascists" and is titled "The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism," have already prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges.

Lawyers could cite the book as evidence that Dierker is unable to be impartial on issues involving women, or liberals, or the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, forcing his removal from cases.


The guy is an asshat for writing this while still sitting.

But, subby, no one is mad at him for writing the book, oer se. They are angry he violated state law by using his position as a sitting judge for monetary gain.
 
2006-12-26 05:04:01 PM
Runs_With_Scissors_: But, subby, no one is mad at him for writing the book, oer se. They are angry he violated state law by using his position as a sitting judge for monetary gain.

I agree.

He's free to espouse any views he wants... but now he can't rule on "women's health" issues or ACLU issues, or pretty much any of that sort of thing impartially.

Plus, he shouldn't be writing stuff for monetary gain while sitting.
 
2006-12-26 07:49:10 PM
Runs_With_Scissors

Agreed, getting paid for espousing political jib is obviously an errant infraction of some such judicial work ethic ,, thingy type bylaw doodad.


Good book by the by.
 
2006-12-26 07:50:34 PM
Ahh that pesky 1st Amendment.


It's against the law for judges to write books?
 
2006-12-26 07:54:52 PM
The article's written by the T-1000 from T2! (and Doggett from X-Files)
 
2006-12-26 07:54:53 PM
FlashLV
Lol ha ha . Oh man yer like a baaad penny, sneekin up on me like that.

I think it indicates "conflict of interest" with the judicial work ethic that requires nuetrality whence interpreting the law.
..but, I could be wrong,,, nnnno no.
The judge oopsed.
Course lemme check the article BRB.
 
2006-12-26 07:57:44 PM
The judge expressed his opinion in a book. If he wrote a book he can't profit? Really I don't know the answer to that.

People can argue that he can't be neutral, but who is neutral in anything?
 
2006-12-26 07:58:23 PM
Although Dierker's book could become available this week, the official rollout comes next Tuesday on conservative TV host Bill O'Reilly's show
First let me just get this out of the way- Bwa ha ha ha Bwa ha ha , Bill O'Reilly, Oh bwa hahaha.

Okay, te hee giggle, that's just so farkin funny to me.
Oh boy.
That judge is off his nut man.
 
2006-12-26 07:59:13 PM
At least there's one good upside to this: at least everyone knows his particular bias.
 
2006-12-26 07:59:20 PM
FlashLV
People can argue that he can't be neutral, but who is neutral in anything?

Judges are at least supposed to pretend they're neutral.
 
2006-12-26 07:59:33 PM
Maybe he is off his rocker, that doesn't stop it from being true ;) lol

I just think if a lib did it, there would be a different tune.
 
2006-12-26 08:01:17 PM
RanDomino


Judges are at least supposed to pretend they're neutral.


Who's to say he's not? There are always judges with agendas. There are judges that won't sentence people to death, they should't be allowed to rule in death penalty cases, but they do.
 
2006-12-26 08:02:06 PM
Funny how rules don't apply to knuckle-dragging thugs who just can't resist shooting their mouths off.

Hopefully this troglidyte will be severely sanctioned or removed from office.
 
2006-12-26 08:02:22 PM
FlashLV

I don't know the answer to that either, it's a good question.
Due to the extreme manifestation of this dude's opinion and the vernacular he uses in the book I'd say he's a tad over the line of ethics.
But, then again like th said, at least we all know where his honor stands.
 
2006-12-26 08:02:43 PM
FlashLV: There are judges that won't sentence people to death, they should't be allowed to rule in death penalty cases, but they do.

Name one. And back your claim up.
 
2006-12-26 08:05:00 PM
FlashLV
I just think if a lib did it, there would be a different tune.

Ah contrare Piere, I at first thought it was the other way around and didn't think it was cool.
Then when I read the article, I knew it was not gonna float:P
 
2006-12-26 08:07:28 PM
moops

Hmm I prolly have time to go refill my wine glass huh?
then see what that whipper snapper comes back with to back his claim up.
 
2006-12-26 08:14:04 PM
FlashLV: The judge expressed his opinion in a book. If he wrote a book he can't profit? Really I don't know the answer to that.

Judges are paid to apply the law. The slant of this book suggests that this judge may be unable or unwilling to apply legal authority if it's "liberal."

If true, this guy needs to have his ass booted out.
 
2006-12-26 08:20:03 PM
Let's see if there's anything available that defines judical ethics codes?
 
2006-12-26 08:21:36 PM
http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.html

Lookee what I found.
Let's explore shall we.
No pops, smeegs is inept.
 
2006-12-26 08:30:52 PM
From CANON 7
C. A judge should not engage in any other political activity; provided, however, this should not prevent a judge from engaging in the activities described in Canon 4.

Might cover it but I think ot's a stretch.
Don't know. I f he endorses political figures in his book then for sure.
 
2006-12-26 08:35:55 PM
Canon 4 is the relevant one here, which allows for a judge to write a book as long as "...if in doing so the judge does not cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before the judge..."; however, determining what is 'reasonable doubt' in the highly-charged partisan arena of liberal vs conservative will be fun.
 
2006-12-26 08:36:10 PM
Okay here it is CANON 4 that really is the particular pinch point of the issue.

A judge, subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, may engage in the following law-related activities, if in doing so the judge does not cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before the judge:
A. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.



Looks like it comes down to a matter of interpretation of what casts reasonable doubt.
I gotta tellya FlashLV the descriptions the judges uses in his book does a pretty good job of casting reasonable doubt.
 
2006-12-26 08:37:25 PM
teen_satan Nicely done, Getz outta my hedz
 
2006-12-26 08:38:42 PM
Yeah, I'd say that Code of Conduct document, as well as Common Sense would dictate that the judge go through a thorough investigation as to whether he should be booted. I'd be for it, and I'd be amused to see him on O'Reilly.
 
2006-12-26 08:40:01 PM
Chaussman

Would prolly be the first time evar, he let a guest get a word in.
ha ha.
 
2006-12-26 08:41:42 PM
By the way, on an unrelated question, how do you quote previous posts to the thread? Sorry for hijacking... I havent been able to find that out for myself.
 
2006-12-26 08:42:11 PM
I think there aught to be a full review of all of his cases.
I would love to see the conviction stats compared to say,, race, sexual orientation quanities etc etc.
 
2006-12-26 08:43:43 PM
Chaussman

Umm copy and paste?
Or past the url in as a hypertyext.
 
2006-12-26 08:44:18 PM
I like "y" s.
 
2006-12-26 08:47:37 PM
What a dumbass. He needs to be booted. We need impartial courts and judges, like the 9th circuit out of San Francisco.
 
2006-12-26 08:48:48 PM
Oh no, not liberals, anything but that.

Things weren't perfect when the "liberals" were in power, but god damn compared to what the conservatives have done in the past 6 years the liberals look like the greatest leaders of all time.
 
2006-12-26 08:49:18 PM
I just think if a lib did it, there would be a different tune.

If a con did it, there would be an award from the President.

/imaginary double standards always satisfy my sense of righteousness...
 
2006-12-26 08:52:53 PM
If a con did it, there would be an award from the President.


They'd be considered a possible candidate for President. See Roy Moore for details...
 
2006-12-26 08:57:26 PM
So, what's the verdict? Is this guy one of those "Activist" judges, for writing a book, or is he whatever the fark you call those who aren't "Activist" judges?

Lazy layabout judges, maybe?

Oh, the liberals hate conservatives,
And conservatives hate the liberals;
Libertarians hate the commies,
And everyone hates the greens.

/Rip off of Tom Lehrer.
 
2006-12-26 09:00:44 PM
oldebayer
So, what's the verdict?

Who the hell knows. I guess we would have to read his book to really see.
Doop,
there you have it,, all the way to the bankaroo
 
2006-12-26 09:06:28 PM
You guys are talking about the cannons for federal judges. This guy is some podunk state court judge. Probably not a big difference, but there could be.

Like this guy is on the front lines of the culture war hearing Class Bs and evictions in St. Louis. Give me a break.

He should be tossed off the bench for being an idiot, let alone for violating the cannons. He was probably sick of the gig and wants to go on the "Oppressed Conservative" gravy-train lecture circuit once he gets rightfully shiatcanned.
 
2006-12-26 09:13:14 PM
Abagad
Good point.
"Oppressed Conservative"?
Now that ain't right.
oxymoron
 
2006-12-26 09:13:20 PM
tarrant84

He's free to espouse any views he wants... but now he can't rule on "women's health" issues or ACLU issues, or pretty much any of that sort of thing impartially.


He already had the opinions before he wrote the book, dontchaknow?

Regardless he would be better off if he just pretended to not have an agenda and ruled anyway he thought he could get away with to advance his beliefs.

That's the way liberal activist judges play the game, and they manage to stick around.
 
2006-12-26 09:16:08 PM
It's all part of the plan


From TFA:
Dierker, who has been on the bench since 1986, has repeatedly been passed over for advancement.

I strongly suspect this guy is not too happy with his job. Instead of retiring with dignity, I think he has a plan to cash in.

1. Publish an extreme right-wing book explaining (via childish name calling) how following the law by being fair and giving women and unpopular groups civil rights is evidence of judicial oppression.

2. Gets his ass kicked off the bench for being a biased douchebag and violating ethics rules.

3. Labels himself as a victim of the "Evil Liberal Forces" at work in the judiciary branch of government by revealing "The Truth."

4. Make million$ writing books and showing up on conservative talk shows. Maybe even start his own talk show.

The sort of people who listen to Rush, Hannity, etc. will lap it right up.
 
2006-12-26 09:21:17 PM
Ya know when Sandra Day O Conner got all that crap for the sentences she handed down for rapists, she was actually enterpreting exisitng law.
She explained that the law was the issue and should be changed. Her job was to implement the laws.
They tagged her as an activist judge.
I think when judges interpret the laws as written and conservatives don't like it, they respond with the knee jerk "Activist Judge" tag.
Predictable and tiresome.

This guy is just a hick judge with stained hands,
Cmon Ya'll know the song.
 
2006-12-26 09:21:50 PM
dfenstrate:

That's the way liberal activist judges play the game, and they manage to stick around.

"no u"
 
2006-12-26 09:43:15 PM
I'm just curious... since the White House has controlled who's nominated to be federal judges for the past 6 years... how in hell could anyone argue that liberals are taking over the judicial system?

Granted, Supreme Court judges tend to become more liberal the longer they're on the bench... which makes sense since people usually get wiser with age... but still... what a whiny conservative nansy-pansy:

"Boo hoo hoo... my fellow judges are doing away with the racism, sexism, bigotry and hatred that has been ingrained into the laws of our lands by our ancestors."

What an ass. Suck it cons.
 
2006-12-26 10:18:47 PM
oldebayer: So, what's the verdict? Is this guy one of those "Activist" judges, for writing a book, or is he whatever the fark you call those who aren't "Activist" judges?

Lazy layabout judges, maybe?

Oh, the liberals hate conservatives,
And conservatives hate the liberals;
Libertarians hate the commies,
And everyone hates the greens.

/Rip off of Tom Lehrer.


I say we go after them with hatchet, ax and saw.
 
2006-12-26 10:54:13 PM
Ahoy there smeegle, I was going to post something along the lines of checking out said judge's rulings. I'll stay out of your head, please do me the courtesy of staying out of mine.
 
2006-12-27 01:10:10 AM
Would these be the same liberals who filled up the jails with minimum sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders? Just curious.
 
2006-12-27 01:31:06 AM
I've come into this thread to agree with Abagadro and Riche.

And to accuse smeegle of drinking.

What's your poison tonight?

/mine is beer, wine and champagne.
//tomorrow might hurt..
 
2006-12-27 02:18:59 AM
moops

FlashLV: There are judges that won't sentence people to death, they should't be allowed to rule in death penalty cases, but they do.

Name one. And back your claim up.


Are you really that stupid?
 
2006-12-27 02:22:46 AM
This guy is pretty much a mental case and is abusing his position. It really doesn't require much discussion.

And, what Riche said.
 
2006-12-27 02:29:21 AM
Riche

It's all part of the plan


From TFA:
Dierker, who has been on the bench since 1986, has repeatedly been passed over for advancement.

I strongly suspect this guy is not too happy with his job. Instead of retiring with dignity, I think he has a plan to cash in.

1. Publish an extreme right-wing book explaining (via childish name calling) how following the law by being fair and giving women and unpopular groups civil rights is evidence of judicial oppression.

2. Gets his ass kicked off the bench for being a biased douchebag and violating ethics rules.

3. Labels himself as a victim of the "Evil Liberal Forces" at work in the judiciary branch of government by revealing "The Truth."

4. Make million$ writing books and showing up on conservative talk shows. Maybe even start his own talk show.

The sort of people who listen to Rush, Hannity, etc. will lap it right up.


Pass the joint please.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report