Femiwhat?

[Lanya]

'FEMIFASCISTS'?.... For some reason, legal experts seem to believe it's problematic for a sitting judge to write a book bashing everyone with whom he disagrees.

    Chapter 1 of Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.'s book, "The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault," has circulated via e-mail since last month and been widely read in legal circles, lawyers and judges say.

    The sentiments expressed in that chapter, 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.

    Other judges and lawyers have said that Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit. One judge said it would be surprising if Dierker was not removed, calling the book "professional suicide."

In a disclaimer at the end of the book, Dierker writes that the views in the book are "personal, and should not be construed as any indication of how I would rule on any case coming before me." No, of course not. Just because he spent nearly 300 pages explaining his beliefs that liberals and "femifascists" are wrong about everything is certainly no reason to question his judicial independence, temperament, and impartiality, right?

Certainly women in St. Louis bringing a case about, say, sexual harassment, can take comfort in knowing that Dierker will be fair and evenhanded, right?

Please.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_12/010456.php

[BT]

I believe the disclaimer is his get out of jail free card. I doubt a sanctioning body can remove him for expressing his personal opinion. I doubt the law about personally profitting from his position had this situation in mind.

The voters can remove him if he is elected. But otherwise i do believe we are looking at a typical freedom of speech issue.

Apparently the folks at washington monthly forgot the old saying about disagreeing with what you say but willing to defend to the death the right to say it. So much for tolerance of ideas. Best get back in the line.

[Amianthus]

For some reason, legal experts seem to believe it's problematic for a sitting judge to write a book bashing everyone with whom he disagrees.

What, just because he's a judge he loses his freedom of speech?

[Xavier_Onassis]

What, just because he's a judge he loses his freedom of speech?

=================================================
An interesting thought.
Should a judge's impartiality be suspect if he joined the Mieses Institute?  How about the John Birch Society? The Communist Party? The  Moral Majority? Or perhaps what if he fashioned a new fraternal robe from his bedsheet?

Is there any political opinion or political group that a judge might be removed for expounding or joining?

It all sounds like Freedom of Speech to me.

On the other hand, a judge's job is to be impartial, isn't it? Are we unreasonable to discriminate against judges that state opinions or belong to groups that might be partial?

Does the good of the many (to expect an impartial judge) outweigh the good of the one (for the judge to expound any view he wishes when not on the bench)?

I wonder whay they would decide on Planet Vulcan

[Amianthus]

Should a judge's impartiality be suspect if he joined the Mieses Institute?  How about the John Birch Society? The Communist Party? The  Moral Majority? Or perhaps what if he fashioned a new fraternal robe from his bedsheet?

How about the ACLU? The Brady Group?

We could go on for quite a while.

I think that if there is no record of a judge's decisions being influenced by a group that judge is a member of, there should not be a problem.

[Plane]

Does a Judge need to recuse himself in cases where he has a conflict of political intrest?

I wonder if this judge has enabled a lot of appeals .

[_JS]

What, just because he's a judge he loses his freedom of speech?

He belongs to a professional group and I'm not sure that freedom of speech applies. For example, the State Bar Association or a Certified Public Accountant have to conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to their positions. Their certifications can be removed, regardless of free speech or not if they abuse their positions or defame their professions.

[Amianthus]

Their certifications can be removed, regardless of free speech or not if they abuse their positions or defame their professions.

Has this judge done either of those things?

[_JS]

I don't know as I am not a judge or a member of the state bar in any state.

My point is that he writes such a book at his own peril and cannot then hide behind the First Amendment to retain his position. You asked the question, "just because he's a judge he loses his freedom of speech?" The answer of course is "no" in that he won't be prosecuted for publishing a book, but yes, he may very well lose his job for it and the right to freedom of speech does not protect him from that.

[BT]

My point is that he writes such a book at his own peril and cannot then hide behind the First Amendment to retain his position.

I don't think any sanctioning board would have the grapes to censure or remove him from office for unofficial acts which he clearly covered with his disclaimer. And i didn't see him hiding behind the first in any of his statements.

The article shows more about the mindset of the tsk tsker's than it does any legal remedies the judge might have if some took their intolerance for "other" ideas to a punitive level.

What next, a senator being refused his seat because he wrote a racy novel or two as a private citizen?

[_JS]

As I said, I wasn't implying anything about this specific case (which I admittedly don't know much about). I'm only pointing out that the First Amendment doesn't protect one from the removal of certification by a professional group if they act contrary to the principles of that group. At least I believe that to be the case, though it has been a while since I took Administrative Law.

A Senator would be different.

[BT]

To the best of my knowledge judges are removed from office by impeachment or resignation. Which would mean governmental action based on a speech issue.

The flimsy reference to profitting from his position i don't think is valid in this case nor do i believe it follows the spirit of the law that provides for that provision.