Courts, Free Speech, Lawyering, Politics, Society

Racist or Clueless? Chief Judge of Montana Under Fire For Obama Joke

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

456 thoughts on “Racist or Clueless? Chief Judge of Montana Under Fire For Obama Joke”

  3. Thanks, Blouise.

    My daughter is looking forward to trying it out.

    I may lose power any minute. The rain is beginning to hammer the windows and wind is picking up. We are on the eastern edge of the big tornado warning, and there has already been significant damage west of my location.

    SwM and Elaine, good show indeed.

  4. through all the noise about religious employers covering “birth control pills” for women everyone seems to overlook that the pills are also prescribed for regulating the menstrual cycle.

  7. OS,

    Typing up that recipe now but will send it out tomorrow. It’s a long one but well worth the effort. I suggest doubling the batch and freezing some. It’s even better after having been frozen and works well as a pasta sauce … just a touch spicy, but a quiet touch.

  8. Blouise, good catch. I am not on Facebook, so cannot check the number of “friends,” or whatever they call them. I could be wrong, but my guess is the ratio should be about the same.

  9. Bda,

    Angela Morabito has 361 followers on Twitter

    Sandra Fluke has 16,692

    Who do you think has the edge?

    (I don’t have any ’cause I don’t have an account … 😉 )

  11. Bdaman, Rush Limbaugh flat-out, unambiguously lied about her testimony as a set up to call her and by extension 40% of the school’s females sluts.

    How do you feel about that? What is your opinion of that?

    Rush Linbaugh said that if women have birth control paid for by others that they should, by way of reimbursement for that payment, post videos of their sexual encounters on YouTube.

    How do you feel about that? What is your opinion of that?

  12. Bdaman
    You are kidding right? No one would go through 3 years of hell and hard work and six figure debt, to just make a point.
    To echo OS’s statement. She never was going to testify about her sex life. That is a lie bing spread by Rush and Fox News. Do a little work and you would know that.

  14. Bdaman, you really ought to do better than to just copy and paste letters from wingnuts, teabaggers and professional haters. How about an original thought now and then, that has not been run through the latest Koch think tank filter.

  15. I’m a proud Georgetown woman upset about another Georgetown woman who may have no pride at all. How else do you explain – Ms. Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student, now famous for testimony she never gave – jumping up to talk about her sex life (with the Senate Minority Leader and with the liberal media) and ask for the cost of her sex life to be subsidized by other students at a Jesuit School?

    Sandra told some sob stories about how contraception isn’t covered by the Jesuit institution we attend. (Maybe they don’t cover it because, you know, they’re a Jesuit institution. Religious freedom? Anyone? Bueller?)

    Let’s talk priorities here. It costs over $23,000 for a year at Georgetown Law. Sandra, are you telling us that you can afford that but cannot afford your own contraception? Really? Math was never my strong suit, but something about Sandra’s accounting just doesn’t seem right.

    No one forced Sandra to come to Georgetown. And now that she has, Sandra does not have to depend on the university health plan. She could walk down the street to CVS and get some contraception herself. Or, go to an off-campus, non-university doctor and pay for it out of pocket. (Or, you know…maybe not have so much sex that it puts her in financial peril?)

    Funny how the same side that cries “Get your rosaries off my ovaries” is the same side saying, “on second thought…please pay for me to have all the sex I want!” The people who espouse “pro-choice” “values” are the same people who say religious institutions have no right to choose.

    Imagine if someone else had asked the government to cover a different activity. Let’s say I want to go rock climbing. It’s my body and my choice and I want to climb all the cliffs I can! Imagine if I went to the government and asked it to pay for helmets and ropes and band-aids I’ll need to safely climb rocks every day of my life. What would everyone say?

    “It’s your choice to do that- no one’s forcing you to scale cliffs. So, either quit it or pay for it yourself!”

    This is the reaction we should have had to Sandra Fluke.

    Sandra, I hope you take to heart our school’s motto of “Cura Personalis” – care of the whole person. You are so much more than your reproductive organs. Please, have some self-respect and take responsibility for your choices instead of having to beg the government for help. The government should not be able to force a religious institution – like the one we attend – to pay for the things they don’t believe in. That is pretty clear in the first amendment. But since you missed the ten commandments I can’t expect you to read the Bill of Rights either.

    I believe in Georgetown. I love this school. And I know that we are so, so much better than what Sandra Fluke would make us out to be.

    Hoya Saxa.

    http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-does-not-speak-for-me/

  16. I can see it now. Brilliant student gets admitted to a Tier I law school and decides to attend for the sole purpose of changing a wrongheaded sexist policy.

    Some days it does not pay to get out of bed.

  17. Bdaman,

    Did you start playing with Koch’s full time now that it’s an election year?

    That’s particularly partisan gibberish even for you.

  18. bda,

    “Methinks there’s more to the story yet to be told.”

    Of course there is. The Republicans are going to try and “Anita Hill” her. Rush was the opening shot and it fell well short of its mark, exploding in his face. There’s more to come because the right hasn’t figured out that, as many on this thread have indicated, everybody is fed up with their filthy minds and filthy tactics. Limbaugh blew up and is bleeding sponsor money, Komen blew up and is bleeding donor money, Cebull friendly fired himself into pervert hell and will be spending a great deal of personal income trying to keep his job.

    They declared War on Women and they’ve got it. We don’t take prisoners.

  19. My comment was that she didn’t go to law school just to challenge an unfair situation.

    and you know this how ?

  20. Bdaman, this sentence needs tweaking….
    “In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy.”

    should read;

    “In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy, imagine having the forsight AND the guts to see a problem and then, right up front….without name calling, back stabbing or subterfuge, addressing it in the light of day” GOOD SHOW FLUKE!!!! YOU GO!!!!

Comments are closed.