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
Sixth Advertiser — Carbonite — Drops Limbaugh Despite His ‘Apology’ Because He’s Beyond The ‘Bounds Of Decency’
By Faiz Shakir on Mar 3, 2012 at 7:57 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/03/437205/carbonite-drops-limbaugh/
Moments ago, Carbonite – a company providing backup software for computers – announced that it will no longer advertise on Rush Limbaugh’s show. CEO David Friend made clear in a Facebook statement that, despite Limbaugh’s “apology” issued tonight, the company was still pulling its ads because it wants to “contribute to a more civilized public discourse”:
“No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”
Indeed, evidencing the point made by Friend, Limbaugh’s “apology” is riddled with offensive statements, comparing contraception to “sneakers” and implying that birth control is only a subsidy for personal sexual activity.
According to a ThinkProgress count, Carbonite is the sixth company to drop Limbaugh in the last couple of days.
Bron,
Thanks for answering one of my questions. You didn’t answer another question that I posed earlier though:
“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,
“Most of the things you want government to do, they shouldnt be doing.
Government should not force women to have ultrasounds prior to an abortion [not that you want that, of course you dont]. It isnt the governments business one way or the other. And it isnt governments business one way or the other if an employer doesnt want to have a contraception benefit.”
Who in the world taught you to argue? Apparently no one. You make an accusation (“Most of the things you want government to do, they shouldnt be doing.”) and follow it with an example of something even you have to admit that I don’t want government doing? That’s pure fucking genius to make an accusation and follow it with non-evidence or contra-evidence (that would mean evidence you’re wrong in your assertion before you decide to make up a meaning). And then you follow that bit of pure irrationality with an argument by non sequitur that commits the logical fallacy of begging the question that business organizations are people? You aren’t just blind. You must be high. That’s not anywhere near a cogent argument let alone an adequate rebuttal.
“You are also wrong about property rights. Where do you think most property comes from? From the actions of living people, they use their productive energy to create property. Our lives dont belong to the state. Government has only 3 functions those are: protecting our lives, our liberty and our property. And that is Locke.”
Too bad for you Locke isn’t the final arbiter of what government does and can do. The Constitution is as well as the jurisprudence surrounding the Constitution. Saying I’m wrong and proving me wrong, again, are not the same thing. You keep running back to Locke to define the functions of government when the functions of government are defined in the Preamble and body of the Constitution. End of story.
Human rights and property rights are not the same thing. Property rights are a derivative of human rights and they are not superior to your other rights, they are dependent upon them. Under our social compact, your property rights are not absolute. They never have been. They never will be in any form of government involved in protecting property rights. Laws impose limits. That’s their function. That’s what you don’t understand. In addition to the innate ability to alienate property, your property may be legally seized for taxes or as civil or criminal damages and the alienation of property – both through commercial transaction and testate and intestate devolution – can be and are subject to regulation by the state. Those are the facts. We have strong property rights here. They are civil rights protected by the 4th Amendment but they are not absolute. Your desire to make them prime over establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty (which, by the way, includes liberty from economic tyranny) is a delusional dream – not a legal, political, social or economic reality. Your rights end where the rights of others begin. Including your property rights.
“We dont give up our rights to enter into the social contract. What we give up is to take the law into our own hands as we did in the state of nature. We let government do that for us. In the hopes that impartial justice is done.”
Again, showing you don’t understand the social compact. Laws are limitations on absolute rights: guidelines and rules to govern behavior. Do you even know what the word “govern” means?
govern \ˈgə-vərn\ v., v.t.,
1a : to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in
b : to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy
2a archaic : manipulate
b : to control the speed of (as a machine) especially by automatic means
3a : to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of
b : to exert a determining or guiding influence in or over
c : to hold in check : restrain
4: to require (a word) to be in a certain case
5: to serve as a precedent or deciding principle for
It is no accident that “govern” and “government” share the same root – the Latin word “gubernare” which means “to pilot, to navigate, to direct, govern” according the handy copy of The New College Latin/English Dictionary I keep on my desk.
When you enter the social compact, you agree to be bound – to be governed – by the laws of the state wherein you claim citizenship. You most certainly do sacrifice your rights by subjecting them to limitations under the social compact in exchange for mutually derived benefit. If you don’t think you’re getting fair exchange for value received here, Bron? Lucky for you, your citizenship is voluntary and alienable. But your understanding of the source of rights, the nature of rights, the role of government and law in society as defined by the Constitution and by the function of social compacts in general is severely and deeply flawed.
You can stomp your feet and tell me I’m wrong all you want. You have yet to prove me wrong on any of these points despite trying to do so many many times. You are unlikely to do so in the future. Why? Because you’re on the wrong side of the argument from a legal, sociological, historical, psychological and factual standpoint because your theories are informed by your beliefs instead of proofs and evidence. Theories founded on beliefs are a sure fire way to go wrong. Beliefs can be factually wrong and irrational. In your case, your beliefs are both. Arguments based upon flawed theories hold up no better.
Now seriously, that was a piss poor performance on your part. A new level of suckiness in your argumentation. That first full paragraph was completely irrational as a matter of formal logic and devoid of proof. The only thing that saved it from being complete gibberish is you used properly constructed sentences. Pick up your game or give it up. Or . . . perhaps you should consider that your fundamental beliefs need to be reexamined in a critical evidentiary light instead of merely catering to your ego by cherry picking half-truths at best and outright wrong ideas at worst.
I’ll be over here not holding my breath.
Gene H:
dont take my word for it, go read the 2nd Treatise of Government.
You accuse me of having blinders, well you have your blinders as well.
Most of the things you want government to do, they shouldnt be doing.
Government should not force women to have ultrasounds prior to an abortion [not that you want that, of course you dont]. It isnt the governments business one way or the other. And it isnt governments business one way or the other if an employer doesnt want to have a contraception benefit.
Go find another job if you disagree with the policy.
You are also wrong about property rights. Where do you think most property comes from? From the actions of living people, they use their productive energy to create property. Our lives dont belong to the state. Government has only 3 functions those are: protecting our lives, our liberty and our property. And that is Locke.
We dont give up our rights to enter into the social contract. What we give up is to take the law into our own hands as we did in the state of nature. We let government do that for us. In the hopes that impartial justice is done.
By the way that Keynes crap you believe in is far worse than free markets. It isnt working now and it didnt work in the 1930’s.
Take those blinders off Gene H, your religion is preventing you from seeing the truth.
Elaine:
“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?”
I would think the answer would be obvious, if I am against government forcing Georgetown to supply contraceptives, then I am against forcing women to have procedures they neither need nor want.
It is the same thing.
I was appalled by the proposed law in Virginia, but then it doesnt surprise if you had read Bob McDonald’s thesis from his law school days.
You are right Elaine!
Would it not be interesting if Rush is found to maybe have procured an abortion for someone….. When people are down.. He represent the party that like to make sure they stay down….. Dittohead…..
rafflaw,
It was Rush’s “I have to say I’m sorry for what I said because I’m getting a lot of heat and losing advertisers but you and your kind are wrong so that’s why I said what I said” apology.
So there’s this judge, see. And he says:
“I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Mr. Obama. The joke that I meant to forward was:
A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’ve got a dick that’s smaller than your clitoris?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Rush! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you’re not a little girl!’”
Following that statement, the judge got into deeper trouble
He compared conservatives with little girls.
He implies that Limbaugh’s mother had sex with women.
Hah! That might work OS!
raff, maybe we should send Key & Peele to negotiate with them.
OS,
Good luck getting the Bisops to pitch in!
Elaine,
Rush still lied about the premise of her testimony in his so-called apology.
Thank you AY.
I say limburger cheese still smells bad even with the added cellophane wrapping.
Note, no retraction on issues, and no naming of the ugly words either.
Shall the boycott continue. Unanimously decided.
As for the Repubs; think if they were so dumb.
AY,
“Did he mention anywhere that he was high on viagra and that was why he was being a prick?”
When isn’t he?
I think he is a bad dog and is just doing what most dogs do…. He’s eating his own do…. The best way he can…..
Elaine,
Did he mention anywhere that he was high on viagra and that was why he was being a prick?
Offered without comment:
A Statement from Rush
March 03, 2012
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/03/a_statement_from_rush
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
Gene H.
nicely said. even i understood some. is there a list of human rights.
seems to be a UN list or are there others? accepted by whom. and in what context are they accorded importance?
thanks if time permits