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
Otteray,
Thanks! Is that a picture of Jabba the Hut?
“I have a daughter and dont like the idea of her being pressured into anything because of some bureaucrat’s mandate saying the government has a right to force private individuals to engage in activity against the dictates of their conscience.”
Organizations are not people. The issue is forcing organizations to provide equal health care coverage to all women, not forcing all women to utilize the option that coverage presents. Access to an option equally provides more options for all. The choice of which option to use is the individuals. Denying the option to the individual is denying the choice to the individual. Providing the choice isn’t mandating that the choice be taken.
“In the end it is a woman’s right to choose, mandating Georgetown provide contraception is taking that right away.”
Yeah, by mandating that organizations not deny the right to choose by denying equal access to options from which to choose, you’ll certainly impair a woman’s right to choose, Bron. Your concern for the rights of business entities to discriminate by proxy processes is truly touching.
“I dont know about you but individual rights are far more important to me than reproductive rights. For the simple reason that sheep are given the right to reproduce but they dont have any individual rights.”
Thus showing a complete lack of understanding of individual rights. Reproductive rights are at the very core of self-determination and as inalienable as the right to self-defense. Your logic is also specious. Sheep, as chattel, don’t have any individual rights let alone the right to reproductive choice. Sheep are property. Sheep have the ability to reproduce. An ability and a right to exercise control over said ability are not equivalent. Your daughter has the right to exercise control over her reproductive processes. Do you think it is fair that an organization is allowed to deny her an option in that arena of choice that is widely provided to most women because they “don’t want to”? Unless the organization you’re talking about is a church proper and thus bringing free exercise issues into play? That’s weak ground to stand upon. Denying options limits choices. In this instance, allowing institutions to deny options limits the choices of individuals.
No. Providing options equally across a class of people with a vested interest in a right does not weaken the right. It strengthens it by disallowing indirect institutional discrimination.
Here is the official poster for the Republican War on Women. It was created by blogger Swampfoot, and he has given permission for it to be posted to Facebook or whatever. You may want to print off a bunch of copies to be nailed to lampposts.
Here is the full size version:
http://i.imgur.com/JxplC.jpg
“Which, my wifes team did exceptionally well. One of her level tens took 1st place in the all around as did one of her 8′s and one of her 9′s took second place, same category. (bda)
Congratulations to her and her team. That is a demanding sport that allows very little room for error.
============================================
“Anyways my life is surrounded by women always has been.” (bda) … as above so below. In other words, you ain’t ever going to escape our attentions. 😉
contraception is not the issue here. Who in their right mind would be against contraception?
I think what is at issue is whether the state [government in general] has the right to tell private entities what they will and will not provide.
If government can tell Georgetown University that they must provide contraceptives as part of their health care plan, then they can tell Wendy’s they may no longer serve french fries and the triple hamburger.
What is at issue is the right of individuals to take decisions on how they wish to live their lives. If you want to be chaste, more power to you, if you want to have sex 5 times a day, more power to you. It is your life.
Contraception is not a right to be provided by others. The right to purchase the contraception of your choice is undeniable. The right to purchase a health plan providing contraception is undeniable.
In a free society choices are made available to the people. And it is assumed they are smart enough to make their own choices and responsible enough to live with the choices they have made. There is no inalienable right to have other people support your poor choices or to provide you with the means for your recreation.
If this woman is so concerned about reproductive rights, start a charity and set up clinics where poor women can receive free contraceptives and information about reproductive health and choices. When I look around our society, I see immense pressure placed on women to have sex. Why?
You could make the case that the availability of contraceptives is just as misogynistic as withholding them. Easy availability sometimes forces women to succumb to societal pressures, to engage in things they would rather not. I have a daughter and dont like the idea of her being pressured into anything because of some bureaucrat’s mandate saying the government has a right to force private individuals to engage in activity against the dictates of their conscience.
Georgetown has a right to withhold contraception just as surely as Planned Parenthood has a right to provide it.
In the end it is a woman’s right to choose, mandating Georgetown provide contraception is taking that right away.
I am going to laugh when at some future time, the government of the US is taken over by Christians and they mandate the eradication of contraception and abortion. The left will have no legal leg to stand on. What the government gives the government can take away. Forcing Georgetown to provide contraception diminishes the individual rights of all of us.
I dont know about you but individual rights are far more important to me than reproductive rights. For the simple reason that sheep are given the right to reproduce but they dont have any individual rights.
Rush Limbaugh Boycott: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook Users Take Part
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/rush-limbaugh-boycott-reddit-twitter-facebook_n_1317698.html
Excerpt:
The Internet has taken aim at Rush Limbaugh.
The inflammatory conservative political commentator and host of talk radio program The Rush Limbaugh Show set off a firestorm on Wednesday with his outrageous comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who was barred from testifying last week before an all-male panel during a House of Representatives hearing on religious freedom and the Obama administration’s contraception policy. Limbaugh on Wednesday called Fluke a “slut” and on Thursday said, “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we […] want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
On Friday morning, HuffPost blogger Krystal Ball called for a boycott of companies that sponsor the Limbaugh show. Participating Twitter users are rallying around the hashtag #BoycottRush, and two Facebook pages calling for a boycott had garnered more than 18,000 and 6,000 Likes by Saturday morning.
Redditor jaybercrow posted on r/politics a list of companies that sponsor the Limbaugh show and encouraged users to contact the businesses to ask that they sever partnerships from Limbaugh in the wake of the controversy. “TO BE CLEAR,” reads a caveat at the very top of the post, “this is about taking Rush Limbaugh down through a boycott of his sponsors and in no way is meant to infer physical harm.”
During the day on Friday, Limbaugh sponsors began responding to the outcry over his statements. Jaybercrow updated the list several times on Friday as sponsors pulled their deals with Limbaugh. By Saturday morning, Legal Zoom, Citrix Success, Heart and Body Extract, AutoZone, Quicken Loans, Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Oreck said they yanked ads from Limbaugh’s show.
Nine companies remain on the list: ProFlowers, CARBONITE, Inc., Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, American Forces Network, Mission Pharmacal Company, Life Quotes, Inc., Life Lock, Tax Resolution and AOL, parent company of The Huffington Post.
Gene H.
Sorry for the rancorous tone, my diverted energies spent in my copy/paste had to find some way out. All is calm, at least after my heart stops racing.
Hackles descend, the dog mumbles a little, and sinks his head.
Joke coming: But you should really do something about that case of judiciality you are nursing. I said that in jest, not to irritate. ´Returns are welcome.
“She makes the demands to our system, fights the fight, carries the burden for those who can not carry them.” (id707)
That’s it in a nutshell.
Woosty,
coming from you that feels good.
Gene H.
Let’s hope you are more sincere than another unmentioned now has shown himself to be. I offer my hand and say thank you.
Good I came just now to check if a response had come to my appeal and admission. It has, and I will accept it and see how it rolls. Yes, I still stand by my admissions
BUT not for the sequece you picture, I took the intervening time to copy and paste the run-up, and feel that the attack on me was late-coming reaction to one post by me and lots of subsequent shit you got from others. ‘
it’s all ready to post here. And that is a fact, not a threat, That time is bye.
So I will accept the Alford way out, admiit guilt and go free from having to look over my shoulder for you.
But as I said, it was a useful lesson. Watch how you kick sand, you might get some in your eye, is my admonition to myself.
So thanks again for a stressful time.
As do others, I stand by that jokes are judged in light of the context of utterance and our historic and current national contexts—-including politics.
This no trial here. But those rules may be used as all arguments may here.
I will play by mine, but not disparage yours Gene, nor of others.
A rosy view of all, is hereby illluminating my face. Beatfication nears.
Shheeeessshhh.
rafflaw,
I found it interesting that Georgetown provides contraceptive coverage for faculty and staff–but not for students. How does that square with the Catholic Church’s position on contraception–and the bishops’ request for a religious exemption?
Great link Elaine!
GEORGETOWN LAW SCHOOL STUDENT GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION CALLS FOR BIRTH CONTROL COVERAGE FOR STUDENTS | Earlier today, Georgetown law school’s student government unanimously approved a resolution commending fellow student and birth control activist Sandra Fluke and calling upon the university to reconsider its discriminatory health plans. Georgetown’s health plans provide contraceptive coverage to faculty and staff but not to students. The resolution “STRONGLY ENCOURAGES the Administration to follow the lead of the student body and the federal government in supporting equality by not denying women vital healthcare coverage.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/02/436812/georgetown-law-school-student-government-resolution-calls-for-birth-control-coverage-for-students/
Mike S.,
“Any real man, no matter what his politics, should be a defender of a woman’s right to choose to be sexual or not. If they can’t they have no business being involved with women…”
Couldn’t agree more!
Sling,
“That’s why they call him Rush”
Thanks for the first good laugh of the day. 😀
Bdaman,
What Mike said.
Sling,
From the mouth of the hatemonger pig Limbaugh:
“Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. … And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up,” Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html
id707,
“Can’t really complain as the shock therapy has perhaps functioned like that said to be used ´by zen masters, when striking a sharp blow to the student, causes enligtenment to occur.”
Precisely. Argumentation is the verbal equivalent of martial arts. You have taken the essence of the lesson to heart it seems and not all who post here can claim that learning, yet alone rapidly. There is no rancor to carry forward. I was never angry to begin with. I hope, in the words of Sean Connery from The Untouchable, “Here endeth the lesson.”
Idealist: (hearing what they want to hear) “Reminds me of churches.”
LOL, amen to that.
“He hasn’t used viagra his whole life as it did become available until 1998 and he is 61.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html
“Limbaugh’s doctor had prescribed the Viagra, but it was “labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes,” Roy Black, Limbaugh’s attorney, said in a statement.”