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
Bron,
The confusion here is entirely yours. You confuse organizations, but specifically corporations, with actual people. They are a legal fiction and have no rights except what government gives them . . . this is the root of the problem of expanding corporate personality. People have rights. Limiting choices limits ways in which rights can be exercised.
“Someday you and others are going to wonder what happened when the Christians force your women to carry their babies to term and then put them up for adoption or deny them the right to contraception.”
No I won’t because it’ll be people like you denying them equal access to contraception based on the ridiculous conflation that corporations are actual people and that “forcing an organization” to do something they don’t want to in order to protect individual’s individual rights is somehow a violation of the organization’s rights. Organizations don’t have rights except what charter creates for them.
“Individual rights are the only rights an individual has. All rights such as self defense and sex stem from a man’s right to his own life. You cannot separate them and if you do, then the government can decide which rights it will dain to give you. At that point the citizen is no longer the sovereign but is government chattel and is nothing more than a sheep.”
Again, showing a fundamental lack of understanding of rights as being solely based in property. This is a blinder you wear due to your ridiculous Objectivism and your consequent belief in make believe pseudo-economics. Your rights are not all unilaterally traceable to property rights nor are all of your rights absolute under a social compact. Some are limited. Some are protected. Many simply are not addressed. Many of your rights have noting to do with the idea property. They exist simply because you exist. These are human rights, inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being, that exist beyond civil rights protected (or curtailed either rightfully or tyrannically) by the laws endemic to the social compact. It’s your choice of myopic beliefs that prevent you from seeing this fact. Civil rights, including the protection of property rights, are rights specifically protected by law, i.e. there are limits put in place on government’s ability to intrude upon them. Many crimes are a violation of your absolute rights under the state of nature, but in entering the social compact, you trade those absolute freedoms for protection (or justice after the fact) from those who would commit acts society has deemed wrong and/or too damaging to other individuals to allow to go on without restraint.
You need government to protect your property rights or they are only as good as your ability to keep your property from being taken by another. You agree that property rights need to have government protection. However, as I’ve pointed out before and you’ve failed to grasp, your property rights are alienable – they can be transferred to another. Your human rights are inalienable – they cannot be transferred to another. Two very distinct kinds of “ownership”. Your rights to control your sexual reproduction (once you reach age of consent) are yours not because you own yourself, but simply because you are.
Your rights may be indivisible, but they are of differing qualities and origin and they are interdependent. Human, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are not the same thing nor do they derive from the same sources. Your human rights derive and depend upon nothing more than your existence.
Your civil and political rights are (often) derived from your human rights, but they are defined and protected by laws under the social compact.
Your economic rights derive from your ability to own property, but property and your quality of rights of holding in property are defined by laws because their very alienability creates situations of human interaction in transference. Ownership of self and ownership of a res are not the same thing. Your rights to property – interest in a res – cannot be enforced if they are not spelled out.
Your social and cultural rights may or may not be civil, political or economic and they may or may not be protected, but rather they exist in solely in the context of a civilization and their prioritization given to your other rights.
But convince you? No. There is no proving to you that your fundamental precepts of Objectivism and laissez-faire economics are rooted in falsities about both human nature and the nature of rights. You’ve demonstrated long ago that you’ve not only drank the kool-aid, but your’re interested in helping make some more. To admit you are wrong in asserting selfishness as a virtue and the idea that markets produce just outcomes would be against your Objectivistic ideal that you are the stick by which all reality is measured and your laissez-faire contention that property rights are absolute. It would require that you recognize others have rights too and that sometimes their rights are going to trump yours as a matter of justice. It’s like asking a Fundamentalist Christian to acknowledge that there is no evidence for the Resurrection. You can’t understand or accept what I say because it is in opposition to your core beliefs. You’re a true believer. A follower, but not a free critical thinker. To even consider that you could be wrong causes severe psychological dissonance. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know you say you’re about liberty and freedom, but like most Libertarians and all Objectivists and Austrian School “economists”, you don’t really understand what liberty and freedom are or where they come from. This is demonstrated time and again by your railing for something in the name of liberty when the net effect of what you advocate is either less individual liberty or outright tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Just like your position on this issue.
If you want to ensure a woman’s maximum control over her reproductive processes, the way to do it is not by allowing organizations to limit her options.
It’s by preventing them from limiting her options.
But that would mean that individuals are more important than organizations. You’ll never reconcile that until you realize the fundamental flaw in your reasoning is rooted in your refusal to realize organizations are not really people even though people constitute their membership.
OS,
It seems you want someone that expresses conservative values hence a Republican to take responsibility……the only responsibility that I’ve seen one take is screwing people over equally…. The latest being contraception….. It’s a smoke and mirror game….. Started with rwr…. Clinton expanded it and the rest is history….
Bron,
“what I object to is not the contraception, I am all for it. What I object to is government forcing an individual or an organization to engage in something which is against their philosophy.”
What is your position on the government requiring women to have unnecessary–and sometimes invasive–medical procedures or tests that aren’t recommended by their doctors?
anon nurse,
And if fewer men in the GOP were sexist, there would be no fight over contraception.
The NEW GOP: Taliban Light
—-
Elaine M.
You’ll get no argument from me — I couldn’t agree more.
rafflaw,
The RCC frowns upon contraception and abortion–but is all for men getting their Viagra. Go figure. Doesn’t make much sense to me–but then I’m just a mere woman.
I have a suggestion. If an employer’s insurance company refuses to cover birth control, then they should be required by law to pay at least partial child support for any resulting pregnancies. About 40%-50% seems fair.
The Catholic Bishops and the RNC should be required to pay the balance.
anon nurse,
And if fewer men in the GOP were sexist, there would be no fight over contraception.
The NEW GOP: Taliban Light
Elaine,
Thanks for the details. Hope the guys here read them.
Makes it so much more real than “woman troubles”.
Would they put up with this hassle over hormonal treatment? Nope.
I have an idea, all men who become priests should be castrated, with the purpose of removing incitement to go against their chastity oath. which vasectomy would not accomplish.
Bron,
I wasn’t talking about the cost of contraceptives–but since you brought it up, I’ll ask you a question: If contraceptives cost $500-$1,000 a month, would you be in favor of Catholic institutions providing women who worked for them with contraceptive coverage?
Bron,
Women should not have to buy a supplemental policy when men don’t have to? The RCC or any employer can’t discriminate by sex.
If Senate had 83 women-not 83 men-there would be no fight over contraception
By Lynn Sweet on March 1, 2012 3:48 PM
WASHINGTON–Senate Democrats were able to beat back a move by Republicans to dilute contraception coverage in the new health care law on Thursday. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had an insight well worth repeating: If there were 83 women in the Senate—instead of 83 men–the Senate would not be wasting its time on regulating female health matters.
My column on how Democrats tabled the Blunt amendment–and how GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney talked himself into a knot over this–is HERE.
Sanders said from the Senate floor, “In Vermont and around the country, there is growing anger that members of Congress, mostly men I should add, are trying to roll back the clock on women’s rights, in this case the right of women to receive contraceptive services through their insurance plans.
“This attack is grossly unfair, and I hope that men will stand with women in the fight to protect this very basic right.
“Let me add my strong belief that if the United States Senate had 83 women and 17 men rather than 83 men and 17 women, my strong guess is that a bill like this would never even make it to the floor.”
rafflaw:
I dont say I agree with Georgetowns policy.
but AY probably hit the nail on the head. Also because the RCC likes to have its members go forth and multiply and a soft member is much like congress.
Elaine:
If they dont like the coverage they have, purchase a supplemental policy that includes contraception or just go to planned parenthood and pay $20 to $50 dollars per month.
Do I have a right to food? Can I have the government issue a mandate stating that Cargill or Archer Daniels Midland must feed me? At what point does it end? Food is much more important than health care and much cheaper too. Why is that?
And housing? Lets have government issue a mandate and make Pulte and Toll Brothers build me a house and have GM make me a car. Government can do anything.
Raff,
That’s easy…. Because pricks are making the decisions…..
Bron,
You have some nerve to state Planned Parenthood is available to provide contraception services! Once again, anything that prevents or gets in the way of a doctor’s prescription, should be a crime. Why is Viagra allowed?
Elaine:
from Cost Helper:
“Typical costs:
For patients not covered by health insurance, birth control pills typically cost $20 to $50 a month.
For patients covered by health insurance, out-of-pocket costs typically consist of a prescription drug copay. Most insurance plans offer the lowest copays on generic medication — usually $5 to $15 — and higher copays of $30 to $40 for non-preferred brands.
Birth control pills, the most commonly covered contraceptive, are covered by more than 80 percent of health insurance plans, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.”
There is also Planned Parenthood and some companys who have a program to help women who cannot afford the drugs.
I also read that states mandate contraceptive coverage.
There are enough sources to make it unnecessary to force people and organizations who have certain beliefs to abide by government dictate.
Bron,
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Why should women who work for Catholic colleges and hospitals and other institutions that employ and do business with people who aren’t Catholic not be able to get certain types of healthcare coverage? Should the church’s right to an exemption of the HHS mandate trump a woman’s right to essential health services and medical prescriptions?
AY:
No, I dont think Charlie Palmers can discriminate against people based on race, etc. But then I dont have the right to make them sell me a hot dog.
If I want a hot dog and I know Charlie Palmers doesnt sell hot dogs, I should go to Nathans. Just because I like Charlie Palmers or just because it is closer to my house isnt a reason for me to go to the government to try to get them to sell hot dogs. I have other options available.
I look at this as a strictly rights based issue. I have a right to a hot dog but not at the cost of forcing Charlie Palmer to sell me hot dogs.
Charlie Palmer could go to government and tell them I should sell him ketchup and mustard for 10% under market. If Charlie can be forced to sell hot dogs what keeps the government from setting the price of ketchup and mustard?
Bron,
It isn’t just about contraception/birth control pills for pregnancy prevention. It’s also about medical procedures like tubal ligations and vasectomies. Another thing: Birth control pills are used to treat a number of female medical conditions, including endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome–both of which can cause pain and other medical problems.
Why do you suppose the Catholic Church doesn’t object to health insurance coverage for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for men?
*****
Polycystic ovary syndrome
Definition
By Mayo Clinic staff
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/polycystic-ovary-syndrome/DS00423
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common hormonal disorder among women of reproductive age. The name of the condition comes from the appearance of the ovaries in most, but not all, women with the disorder — enlarged and containing numerous small cysts located along the outer edge of each ovary (polycystic appearance).
Infrequent or prolonged menstrual periods, excess hair growth, acne and obesity can all occur in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. In adolescents, infrequent or absent menstruation may signal the condition. In women past adolescence, difficulty becoming pregnant or unexplained weight gain may be the first sign.
The exact cause of polycystic ovary syndrome is unknown. Early diagnosis and treatment may reduce the risk of long-term complications, such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
*****
Endometriosis
Definition
By Mayo Clinic staff
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/endometriosis/DS00289
Endometriosis is an often painful disorder in which tissue that normally lines the inside of your uterus — the endometrium — grows outside your uterus. Endometriosis most commonly involves your ovaries, bowel or the tissue lining your pelvis. Rarely, endometrial tissue may spread beyond your pelvic region.
In endometriosis, displaced endometrial tissue continues to act as it normally would: It thickens, breaks down and bleeds with each menstrual cycle. And because this displaced tissue has no way to exit your body, it becomes trapped. Surrounding tissue can become irritated, eventually developing scar tissue and adhesions — abnormal tissue that binds organs together.
This process can cause pain — sometimes severe — especially during your period. Fertility problems also may develop. Fortunately, effective treatments are available.
Bron,
I’ll bite…. If charles palmer sold hotdogs…. Wouldn’t they have to sell it to you? Or they could refuse to sell you based upon not meeting a dress code or something…. You have a choice of where you can go….you also have a right to eat there as well…..and so long as you can pay…. But they don’t have the right to make a choice to exclude you based upon some nilly willy criteria…. Or do you think differently?