Chief U.S. District Judge of Montana Richard Cebull is under fire for a joke that he sent to friends from his court email. The email has been denounced as racist and “compares African-Americans to dogs.” He insists that it was not for public circulation and reflected his dislike for the president, not black people.
Judge Cebull sent an email entitled “A MOM’S MEMORY.” It opened with the statement “Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.” It follows with this “joke”: “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”
Cebull says that it was only sent to six other people as well as his own private emails. It appears that one of the six other people sent it along to the media.
Cebull insists that the email simply shows that “I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan. I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.”
We previously saw Chief Judge Alex Kozinski involved in a controversy over pictures and jokes sent to friends over a personal website.
The case raises the question of how to respond to such an email. Some have called for his resignation or removal. Others for judicial discipline. There are two likely ethical charges. One is the misuse of the court computer and the other is the transmission of a racist communication.
First, judges routinely use their work emails for private communications. We all tend to use office email for a variety of purposes. I do not see how this judge can be severely disciplined for simply using office email for a private communication. If Cebull is punished, what about the fact that probably 90% of judges use their office emails for private messages as the rest of us do (the other ten percent do not use email).
Second, there is the racism charge. Cebull insists that this was anti-Obama and not anti-black. It is still a stupid joke. However, I am not sure it is fair to assume that the judge is a racist from this one joke. It could simply show that he is entirely clueless and thoughtless. That is never good in a judge, but the question is whether it warrants the actions demanded against him.
Working in his favor is the relatively small number of people who received the email (though one always has to anticipate re-transmissions or forwarding of emails). He was sharing a bad and racially loaded joke with friends. We have discussed the trend toward punishing public employees for private emails, postings, and activities. Of course, a judge is required under ethical rules not to conduct themselves in a way to bring contempt upon the court. Canon Two states “a judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The comment Canon 2A does seem to have some relevance here:
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
While I certainly see why this type of joke raises serious and legitimate concerns, I am not convinced that it warrants punishment beyond the current (and justified) public criticism. The judge is claiming that he thought he was sending this to a handful of friends. It would be akin to a bad joke at a party being repeated later. He clearly failed to appreciate that “the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.” That would include racially-charged jokes that get out. Yet, the question is whether it warrants an actual reprimand or more serious punishment. There may be a sense that, given the use of the court computer, an admonishment is needed — just as Chief Judge Kozinski was admonished.
Cebull received a B.S. from Montana State University in 1966 and a J.D. from the University of Montana Law School in 1969. After a long stint in private practice, he served as trial judge of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court from 1970 to 1972. He then served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Montana from 1998 to 2001 before being nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Montana. He became chief judge in 2008.
Source: Politico
“His defense of his actions reveal that he clearly does not even understand that comparing interracial marriage to bestiality is racist,”
By the same logic, his defense of his actions reveal that he clearly does not even understand that
– not ceasing to beat his wife is wrong
Jill,
Watch out.
One of the a..holes here will point out righteously that that was said before, and is certainly copyrighted (like most of the language at this point.
Or maybe attacking the RWA might adventure your ips secrets. Another favorite theme.
id707,
Oh where to start with your line of inane babbling bullshit . . .
I was simply going to ignore it because you are indeed a fool, but since you been so prolific with it, it would be a shame to let it go to waste.
“Getting back to reality we started with”
There you go again implying that you have the corner on reality when it is becoming increasingly evident that your connection to the concept is nebulous at best.
“Geez, Gene, the “sexist and msiogynistic joke” is old and boring routine.
Don’t you understand that? Wow, if not.
And so what’s special? It’s the President and his mother which makes it special—-and of course the black component.
Now even your logic of jokes is weakening.”
Oh yes, logic and evidence are such an old, boring routine. That you’re too dense to grasp that the woman is the butt of the joke as a structural matter is your failing in understanding logic and language, not mine in applying it to analysis.
“Using Eniobob as a referency only ´confirms your blindness.
Eniobob has shown what he values most, but do you seek confirmation in his arguments or his ruling? Which?”
Learn to read. I referenced comments in an article Eniobob cited in relation to a tangential subject (those oh so old boring topics of sexism and misogyny), but by all means, make that into an attack on my values. That’s a fine display of logic, evidence and argumentation. (Pst! That was sarcasm.) I get it. You think I’m blind to reality which is just a polite way of calling me delusional. I know you’re irrational as a matter of your arguments lacking logic and evidence and I think you are possibly suffering from senile dementia. Let’s call it even.
“Please give me links to the festivities. Want to add my C4 to the pile.
A popular general attack it what this country needs to attack racism.
Lots of other benfits as well, but space is limited.”
Even when the racism may not really exist in the instant case. Again, your prejudice applied to determining judgement is no more right than a racist’s prejudices applied to determining judgement. You were offended so automatically the judge must be a racist. You don’t give a damn about evidence, mens rea or actus reus. Your idea of justice is all about you and your reactions. Except that justice isn’t really all about you, is it? Equity is a key component of justice and equity is a relationship between two or more parties.
“C. Evert Kook
Succinct, and complete. You shot a drive through hole in the joke logicians big enough to drive through. He should wave the white flag now, but like all such missiles they leave him equally dumb and alive as before.
An ordinary mortal he is not.”
Yes, that’s why no substantive rebuttal was made after my last point to CEK. Instead of dragging others into your irrational attack on me, might I suggest you taking that white flag and sticking it up your anonymous ass? I’ll concede superior logic (and evidence) when I see it, but so far, I haven’t seen any on this thread. Why don’t you try to drive a hole in my arguments using logic and evidence instead? Oh, that’s right. You can’t because so far your arguments are all based on appeals to emotion and your feelings of indignation instead of evidence and logic.
“No, living in Sweden does not make me final arbiter of reality, nor did I think so, nor did you think that I thought so either—-but you use it as the usual garbage to throw at me, cheapening the value of anything else you offer.”
Actually, you really shouldn’t tell me what I think as I’m perfectly capable of expressing myself. If you don’t want people to get the idea that you think you’re the final arbiter of reality? Then stop acting like your version of reality is the final one. Offer evidence and logic to back those assertions rather than opinion. Telling me your version of reality is correct is not the same thing as persuading me your version of reality is correct. I could give a damn about your opinions absent persuasive evidentiary proof and logic to back your position. Again, all I’ve seen in your position here is a rush to judgement based on insufficient evidence and your personal feelings of moral indignation.
“All that aside, we all ultimately choose our POV as the final arbiter
Now don’t we?”
Speak for yourself. Some people prefer evidence and logic and the final arbiter of reality. My visual perception from my point of view tells me the world is flat. The evidence and logic and subsequent knowledge gleaned from science tells me the world is round. I like my world round. It has the merit of being the truth.
“And sometimes a “joke” stinks so badly that most at the salon will
will exchange glances and look down in shame as sharing the blame jointly for that expressed by one there at the party.”
You apparently cannot distinguish between speaker and subject. I’m no more jointly to blame for Cebull’s stupidity and tastelessness than I am for your willingness to jump to a guilty verdict based on insufficient evidence. Those two albatrosses came to the party with you boys. I would be responsible if I were to make a judgement Cebull was in fact a racist based on insufficient evidence. However, I’m not making that hasty judgement so I have nothing at all to feel shame about.
“So scientifically/lawyerly you are correct. But you are denying reality.”
No, I’m just denying your version of reality because your version of reality doesn’t match the evidence. You could have just started and stopped with “you are correct” instead of couching it in the rest of your inane and irrational babble.
“I can think how you were as a debating team member, you never saw your opponents, only their arguments. Unfortunately there may be many judges with similar faults.”
First, judges aren’t supposed to see anything but the arguments and evidence. They are supposed to be impartial triers of fact. What you would consider a fault in a judge is actually a prerequisite for being an impartial trier of fact.
Second, if you do not see your opponents in adversarial process, you are going to miss some of their arguments and/or misread their strategy and tactics. You mistake detachment for some kind of inability to empathize with others. They are not equivalent. Empathy is as essential to formulating tactics and strategy as detachment is to evaluating evidence and formulating sound argument.
“My other posts attacking Gene’s attachment ot logical interpretation of jokes as opposed to others use of other forms of recognising racism, were more extensive, but this is one I found after a quick skimming.”
If you’re going to attack my logic, you better bring your A game of evidence and logic instead of relying upon your opinion and appeals to emotion as if they were actual evidence or logic. They aren’t. Extensive does not mean effective either as a matter of evidence or logic . It just means you engage in argumentum verbosium. I’ll hand you your head on a plate every time with that tactic.
Please feel free to make a fool of yourself some more.
SwM
Tell us where you’re at so we can sigh longingly. And don’t say you’re visiting relatives/in-laws or we’ll be forced to offer condolences.
Some meaning concealed in poorly done humor. But……
This joke is sexist and racist. It’s really ugly.
Charlie Gonzales is a lawyer.
“To say that this type of behavior is indefensible and deeply disturbing is really to scratch at the surface of a deeper issue,” said Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez, D-Texas, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “His defense of his actions reveal that he clearly does not even understand that comparing interracial marriage to bestiality is racist, and no matter what his intentions were, his actions were racist.”
Missouri Democratic Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II, who is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, called Cebull’s email “beyond disrespectful and ignorant.”
Idealist, If one was doing a voting analysis of this small sample, one could conclude that those that have professed that they could never vote for Obama end up on one side of this discussion and the rest of us on the other side with maybe one exception.. At one time I studied voter surveying and polling and I like to find patterns. I am on vacation and won’t be on much for the next few days.
Bdaman,
Both images are racist.
Image.1
Bush has a hang-dog posture and looks dejected.
Gonzales is looking at the camera and taking it like a man.
The clear message is that White Anglo Saxons are a bunch of pussies.
Image.2 is racist on at least two counts.
a) See the look that the guy on the left is giving the black guy?
That a gay look.
The clear message is that all blacks are gay.
(This is attacking blacks and gays at the same time)
b) The black guy is captured by a band of Al Queda types.
Not to be beaten, he has fashioned an improvised Stars and Stripes using his underwear – with part of his tie for blue and his own blood for red. He waves it proudly.
The clear message is that only black men can be true patriots. It’s anti-white.
There is also a message that black men wear sensible underwear, and not ridiculous skimpy speedos of the cross-dressing g-string type.
The only story in all of this is that the judge is a bit of a dick.
1. He forwarded a silly joke
2. He used his work email to do that
3. His work is of a nature that he has a duty to hold himself to a higher standard than many others.
By all means criticise a judge for being an ass. It’s possible that an examination of his work email account would show a pattern of silly forwarding of all sorts of nonsense.
Joining in with the likes of the HuffPo is just hysteria.
———————————————————-
1) He forwarded a stupid low racist joke about the Commander and Chiefs’ mother in a time when the Country is extremely polarized and every nuanced thing is politicized.
2) He used his work email to do that, Emails are considered to be company property if they are sent using the company’s computer system. Additionally, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57388838/federal-judge-says-he-sent-racist-obama-email/
to be a Federal Judge and verbalize regrding the President of the US in this tone and manner suggests a deep disrespect for the authority and position of the elected officia and a willingness to spread that disrespect . Employees are fired for less.Clinton wasaccused of nastiness and ‘fired’ or at the least rendered ineffective using the same twisted and weakening manner…why would it go less for a judge?
3 )His work is of a nature that he has a duty to hold himself to a higher standard than many others. Yup.
Joining in with the likes of the HuffPo is just hysteria, SO, luckily, opinion is not the end all indication of ‘joining’, and ‘hysteria’ used in this context is nothing more than the same undermining picture painting finger pointing as demonstrated in that sad ugly joke.
This is a test.
Which image is racist
http://unconfirmedsources.com/nucleus/media/4/20070402-Bush-Gonzales.jpg
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/obama-rope.jpg
Is ´Talkin’Dog a JAG retiree, who likes the climate but not the rednecks?
Bron they will never get it.
If the man in question had been Herman Cain, Alan Keyes or Thomas Sowell there would have been no “outrage” on the left.
There is a dog in our dog pack who will remain un-named who hails from another planet and is “down here” (his term not mine) as a “reporter”. I was trying to explain that the Cialis commercial he saw on television did not exactly explain “how sex is performed and babies are borned in America”. He was confused by the duel bathtubs in the back yard at the end of each commericial with the contented couple basking therein. But to the point here about the judge. BarkinDog says that he thinks that the Judge might be an American Indian since he was a judge on the Northern Cheyanne Tribe Court prior to being a U.S. District Court. BarkinDog asked if that gave him “cultural privilege” in Montana to make a racist/doggist joke, or to convey someone else’s racist/doggist joke on the internet to friends, not to the public. BarkinDog says that our President is a true African American since his father was an African (not a citizen) and his mother a caucasian American. BarkinDog says that our President should be considered White not Black or African American since he is half White and was raised by the mother in the White world of Hawaii. BarkinDog says that the part of the so called joke about the dog is not taken correctly. I asked him not to report back to his planet on this one because if they could not figure out the two bathtubs in the backyard in the Cialis commercial that they would infer way too much into this story. BarkinDog says that from his point of view the judge should not have internet privileges or bathtub privileges for one year.
Just a DogTalkin here.
Bron,
“If the man in question had been Herman Cain, Alan Keyes or Thomas Sowell there would have been no “outrage” on the left.”
I disagree.
We should be able to criticize individuals for their actions and statements–not for the color of their skin…their land of origin…their ethnicity. I have been critical of some of the things that President Obama has done myself. So have many other people on the “left.”
There have been a number of racist emails sent and racist statements made about our President–not because of what he’s done–but because of who he is.
AY
You wrote: ”
Bob,
Logic escapes most….. Some folks logic is as simple as their thinking…. And they don’t do too much of that either….. Except to attack the messenger…..””””””
=====================
Good shot!
My limitations are my limitations. OK? But am not force to agree, but willinglly admit am not in Bob’s class. But in spite of that, I spend my time on what I see as holes in their reasoning. I don’t “attack the messenger”, rather the message.
But some mistake the one for the other. Particularly those assuming an elite position to assert their ideas from. Mc Luhan said something about the media is the message. Is it therefore that some perceive message attacks as messenger attacks
Lastly, I wonder why you used this sneaky way of delivering criticism, ie by not naming who you are criticizing. This, “we know who we are talking about—he he he he!” Don’t you recognize this as a bully tactic.
This is denigrating yourself, I feel. Your mind and ideas are worthy of better.
You’ve at least stopped accusing me of being an imposter. (???? or have you abandoned that???).
Countering a malice spreader is difficult. And reforming is apparently impossible. But in contrast to myself, you have so far to me never shown anything of yourself. You could just be a computer voice. This, other than the above said, is as far as I can go in characterizing you. So what are you hiding.
And why refuse to call me by name? Are you saving the argument that I’m confusing general remarks for a personal attack, expressing my paranoia only. Again, the same methods used by racists. As Mike pointed out.
You know racists are bullies too. Where do you stand on the joke’s and the judge’s intent? Have you expressed your position?
AY:
That is easy.
So they dont lose it.
Query: why do female reporters in the middle east wear those things on there heads?
Bron,
He could just have dark humor…