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
None of which changes what I’ve said about property or the limitation of rights under the social compact, Bob.
Gene,
Perhaps this will explain:
http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/john-locke/
** “subjects property to taxation”
Let’s assume in arguendo that Jefferson was doing what you claim he was doing. That Jefferson’s qualification was by sublimation and not omission.
What exactly is tempering, Bob?
To temper, the verb in the sense you use it, means to dilute, qualify, or soften by the addition or influence of something else.
Just like the Constitution recognizes strong property rights, but tempers them – dilutes them from absolute – as limited compared to other rights. It subjects to taxation and judicial redistribution as a matter of establishing justice under equity. You are only bolstering what I previously said: “Property rights are a derivative of human rights and they are not superior to your other rights, they are dependent upon them.”
Sublimation? Exclusion? The net effect is the same. We end up with the same truth via different paths as to how the Constitution deals with property.
Gene: “Then Jefferson should have used the word property instead of creating ambiguity for your speculation about his intent vis a vis Locke”
Absolutely not. If you read the passage by Locke you’ll see how it tempers the self-centered connotation of property in a document to be seen by the world as justification for revolution.
Bob,
Then Jefferson should have used the word property instead of creating ambiguity for your speculation about his intent vis a vis Locke. None of this changes that the DOI isn’t law and the Constitution is and grants powers that allow for the redistribution of property. Property rights are going to be limited by any system that governs them. The degree to which an individual attaches their concept of property to the concept of happiness is entirely up to the individual and the very gist of the topic of materialism.
Gene,
Pursuit of happiness is Lockean short hand for pursuit of property. The way I see it, Jefferson combined the two works of Locke out of his greater understanding of the intent of his writings.
Pursuit of property is part of the political equation, but pursuit of happiness, in lieu of simply property, pays homage to Locke’s greater message in his essay concerning human understanding.
Jefferson was not just restating the purpose of the social compact, but making a righteous statement to the world.
Bob,
Have I ever claimed Jefferson wasn’t standing on the shoulders of others?
No.
Bob,
In Taibbi’s defense, Bachmann is batshit crazy and it has absolutely noting to do with her gender.
Gene,
Just reminding you that Jefferson’s bragging about relying on neither book nor pamphlet was a load of horse shit.
Interesting article in the Daily Beast this morning…
Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist
by Kirsten Powers
Did you know there is a war on women?
Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.
Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.
Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.
But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?
During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.
Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)
(continued)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
Careful there, Bob.
That “obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases” line might cause some readers to have a conniption.
None this changes, however, that happiness is a relativistic internal state of being and cannot be legislated.
“The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases.”
John Locke
Essay: “Concerning Human Understanding”
What Gene said.
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking the Declaration of Independence has the power of law. It doesn’t. The DoI is aspirational and a thumb in the eye of the King. The Constitution we have now may be the result of the DoI, but the Constitution is law and the Declaration is not.
Great response Gene.
Bron,
The DOI informs the Constitution. It isn’t the Constitution. The functions of government are found in the Constitution. Also, don’t try to second guess Jefferson’s “rhetorical flourish”. Had he wanted to use the word property, he would have used the word property. As to Sam Adams? So what? Irrelevant. His language wasn’t incorporated into the Constitution.
“So we have eminent domain, but there is no right in the Constitution to take a private persons property and give it to another private person even if some justices think so.”
Yeah, Bron, there is a right in the Constitution for the government to take a private persons property and give it to another private person even if some justices think so. To establish justice? Courts in equity have been redistributing property to create just outcomes since their creation. The powers to tax and spend are powers specifically granted to Congress and they include tax and spending to meet the functions of government as described in the Preamble. That you’re unhappy about this does not mean the power does not exist.
The happiness referred to in the DOI isn’t your specific happiness. Some people are never happy. Happiness is an emotional state. You cannot legislate it. You can legislate to promote or protect life. You can legislate to promote or protect liberty. But happiness? It is at the very best and on the outside the expression of the desire that the goal of law shouldn’t be to purposefully anger or antagonize citizens because happiness is a relative state and it is entirely in the mind of the individual.
“And you cant see that because you dont want a limit on the power of government.”
You can’t see that I do want limits on the power of government but that does not preclude wanting limits on the ability of others to create economic tyranny out of their own base selfish and venal natures. Above all, I’m for justice in all its forms. Justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality and fairness. Justice is what creates stable and long lived societies.
Equality embedded in the egalitarian ideal Jefferson incorporated into the the DOI with the phrase “All men are created equal” and Constitution embraced by using the phrase “We the People” as ultimate holder of power in our democracy. That it took time to bring those aspirations to reality by emancipation and expanding suffrage (and the ever lasting and evolving battle to bring equal rights to all) is merely a reflection of time and the evolution of society required to fully embrace these aspirations.
Fairness? The very symbol of justice, the scales, not only implies equality but fairness as well. Rawls points a fundamental truth about justice as it relates to equality – for each person to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Fairness in pursuit of promoting the general welfare requires that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle (equality of outcome), and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
As I already pointed out, there are two kinds of “goods” – 1) human rights and liberties based on mere existence and inalienable and 2) physical and intangible property rights that are derived from human rights but are alienable. As they are “property” of distinct qualities, justice requires different distributions of them to ensure fairness. In the case of human rights and liberties, they must be distributed equally between all citizens. Again, this is embedded in the idea that your rights end where the rights of others begin. In the case of classical property – the alienable tangible and intangible assets in society – the distributions must be made equally (that is to say private ownership of property is to be paramount if title is acquired fairly and with providence) unless inequality improves the position of the worst off in society. This is the very essence of the promotion of the general welfare.
These are also the fundamental truths about justice under the theory of social compact – the theory that is the basis for all forms of government. In fact, Rawls derived his notion of justice directly from the social compact theory of government.
Now there is also a retributive quality to justice, but I’ll leave that for another time since you are preoccupied with the distributive quality of justice. Too bad as that would again be a discussion of why synthesis of other models with weak rule utilitarianism provides the most optimal just outcomes. But seriously, that is for another time.
That was also a much better performance on your part. It was 100% gibberish free and the reason was only flawed because you again choose to base your theory and your argument tailored to fit your beliefs instead of the reality of the situation. The Constitution simply doesn’t say what you want it to say, Bron. It is what it is, but mainly it is the heart of our legal system.
If you have a problem with the distributive nature of justice and the idea that the establishment of justice extends to the social arena by merit of the promotion of the general welfare being a legitimate function of government and that distributions cover property both as a foundation of the the very idea of courts in equity as well as through the Commerce Clause? I don’t know what to tell you other than that is your problem. To remake the country into your Libertarian ideal wouldn’t mean amending the Constitution. It would mean throwing the whole thing out the window and starting from scratch. Your choices seem to be 1) suck it up and deal with the fact that your property rights are not and have never been absolute here, 2) leave for a country where you feel you get a better value personally from the social compact or 3) start a revolution.
But as a matter of Constitutional law, jurisprudence and history, you’re simply wrong again.
Gene H:
Why does the Constitution limit the power of the government?
Why does the DOI say right to Life, Liberty and Happiness? Rights that dont issue form anyone or any thing but from the Creator. Which could be God or it could be nature. Those rights are ours because we are human beings, no other reason.
then Jefferson goes on to say: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .”
So the government only has power because the people grant that power. As far as I can tell we dont give up rights, we grant the government power to govern us. And only to a point as Jefferson makes clear:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. . .”
What ends; Life, Liberty and Happiness. Which is directly from Locke. Jefferson should have used property but wanted a rhetorical flourish. Sam Adams used property in the 1772 Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting:
“1. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”
He goes on to say:
“In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.”
I seem to be in agreement with Sam Adams.
Now with that said, he does also say this:
“The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.”
He goes on to say this:
“In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”
I would change “the gift of God Almighty,” to “the natural state of man based on his ability to reason,. . .”
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm
The best good for the whole is OK to a point and that point is the individual right to life, liberty and property. So we have eminent domain, but there is no right in the Constitution to take a private persons property and give it to another private person even if some justices think so.
And you cant see that because you dont want a limit on the power of government.
By the way, I typically use this for a dictionary:
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=elite&use1913=on&use1828=on
PS
It does seem programmed; all the repeats, the unanswered questions, etc.
And it seems to be set for shuffle mode.
Could Gene H. offer to reprogram it entirely? Or would Bron’s sponsors withdraw support.
Enough nastiness for today. I’ve maxed out to re-use a phrase.
Must remember my promises to myself.
Gene H.
Your contretemps with Bron reminds me on one of those Disney cartoons where a live person interacts with a Disney character.
Here Bron reminds me of Donald Duck (C), in that he rebounds from all missiles, only for seconds in bad shape; and then a miraculous recovery to then return to the incoherent state of before.
This is not meant as a cheap shot at Bron, but a fully possible explanation.
I mean he could have activated his second rate computerized dialogue program in order to take a rest for a while. Computer power is growing, but sometimes stumbles.
Elaine M.
Thanks for the more extensive quote from Carbonite’s CEO.
The part of having daughters……was great to hear from a corp.
WaPo redacted that part. Why, can be asked? They are giving space to 5,000+ comments, aren’t they. And other articles too.
Here’s one of my posts there:
idealist707 responds:
1:37 PM UTC+0100
As for Limbaugh getting Viagra on his insurance—-No, he can’t. He’s maxed out already.
That’s why he has to shop MDs who will prescribe it under their own name for him.
It comes by mail. COD, of course. Who says internet is not convenient.
And for maxed out, I mean as a “former” sexual addict, he is forbidden to use the product.
AND ANOTHER:
idealist707 responds:
1:32 PM UTC+0100
Investigators were sent to Limbaugh’s vacation land to see which of the sex markets he visited:
gay, hetero, pedo, bestial, etc. The answer came back quickly: “All of them”
PS That was the last of 10 bottles of Viagra he had left the states with. Lucky man, tired wienie.
Regards from that media forum.