Detroit’s Third Circuit Judge Wade McCree is at the center of a Weiner-like controversy after sending a nearly naked picture of himself to his bailiff. It certainly produced a passionate response . . . from her husband who has filed a judicial complaint. McCree however appears unapologetic and notes that he did not send the photo to any other married woman — a curious claim of mitigation. When confronted over the photo, McGree responded “I’ve got no shame in my game.”
McCree did not deny the photo, stating when asked “Hot dog, yep that’s me. I’ve got no shame in my game. I ain’t talking to nobody else’s wife. You can almost get that here and now.” He added “I’ve sent that out to other women. There’s nothing nude about it. I’m in no more clothes than I’ll be at the Y this afternoon when I swim my mile.”
Okay, I am now more concerned with his sanity and the propriety.
The fact that this was a court employee creates an obvious sanctionable violation of judicial ethics (as well as an unsolicited revealing photo to a woman). Let start with Canon 1:
A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. . . . The provisions of this code should be construed and applied to further those objectives.
Then there is Canon 2:
A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in
All Activities
A. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
Since few people besides Anthony Weiner would send such a photo, the judge fell a bit off this mark.
McCree’s name may seem familiar for some lawyers. His father, Wade H. McCree Jr., was solicitor general to Jimmy Carter and the first African-American judge to be appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He, however, tended to keep his robes on.
McCree is a graduate from the University of Michigan (B.A.) and Stanford Law School (J.D.).
By the way, McCree is reportedly an expert on sexual misconduct cases.
Source: Daily Mail
Stick your own straw men in your own mouth, ARE.
It’s not my fault you don’t understand what the full meaning of the word “proposition” is or understand the context here that is inappropriate. The inappropriate part of the proposition here isn’t sex. It’s offering to expand an interpersonal relationship from professional to personal with a married subordinate co-worker. Sorry if your boner got in the way of you seeing that.
The guy obviously thinks of it as seductive, he referred to the picture as his game. Since when is it o.k. for someone in a position of authority over another person to try and seduce them?
“Just when you think you’ve seen it all, another judge goes and pulls a Weiner. In case you haven’t heard, Wade McCree, a state judge from Michigan, has been accused of sending nearly-nude photos to a bailiff via sext message. That’s right, we’ve got judicial divos posing for male pin-up shots right here in America (sorry to steal your Canadian thunder, Madam Justice Lori Douglas).
As they say on the internet, TTIWWOP — “This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.” Well, we’ve got one (safe for work, of course)….
Now, you’d think that a man wearing a bow tie would be conservative, but not Judge McCree. He’s sexy, and he knows it — no, seriously, he really is” From “Above the Law”. I can’t tell if it is a proposition or he is a narcissist who is showing off. It is inappropriate in any case. We might need to see a picture of the bailiff. lol
ARE,
You seem to be obsessed with sex. I can’t help you with that. The improper part of this transaction is the proposition and its infringement upon a marriage and that she was a subordinate co-worker. As to the interplay? Whether we are privy to it or not is irrelevant. Obviously it was a problem for at least the husband since a complaint was filed.
You seem to be obsessed with sex.
I am obsessed with sex? While YOU think asking a woman to dinner is an invitation to have sex! ROTFLMAO! Thank you for brightening my day.
We might need to see a picture of the bailiff. lol Great post SM
A bailiff is an in house person who moderates the looneys in the judge’s courtroom. Order In The Court. If the photo at issue is the photo on the screen here then what is the problem? He is not revealing a weenie so he is not a Weiner. She is not whining. So she is not a whiner. He did not appear in the Courtroom, in public, nude or lascivious. We can publically show the President with his shirt off at the beach but this guy can not share this lame photo with his bailiff? Her husband is mad?
I think it is time for the robes in court to go. No one knows if the person is foindling himself like some priest at confession when he/she hears something tantalizing from a person on the stand. Ginzberg should definitely lose the big white bow tie on her robe. Commander Cody Rehnquist needed to lose the four stripes like he was in the Navy on his robes. They need to wear a suit and tie. Women can wear suit and no tie or perhaps wear a bow tie. But no tiedye.
Arthur,
I apologize for my incorrect initials earlier. It should have been ARE.
ARE,
Proposition is a matter of intent of the speaker/sender and perception of the receiver. You seem to want to include “lewd” into the definition of proposition when that isn’t always or necessarily the case.
“Would you like to go out for dinner?” is as much a proposition as “Hey, do you want to get naked and swing from the chandelier?”
It’s offer. The form of the offer is secondary.
ARB,
sending this suggestive photo to a married woman is more than just being narcissistic. It is a proposition, plain and simple. I didn’t say it was lewd, but to a married woman who didn’t ask for it, it is offensive.
“Would you like to go out for dinner?” is as much a proposition
I wish I were so lucky as you when I was single. When I was dating, I did not think of such an offer of going to dinner was an invitation to have sex afterwards. In fact, I did take some married women out to dinner who I worked with and I had no intention of having sex, nor do I think that they took it that way.
I and you are not privy to the interplay between the two at work and off duty, so I have NO way of knowing what they would consider appropriate or offensive. So for me as an outsider to take such a photo as proof positive of dishonoarable intent is beyond my capacity. For example, is saying to a woman that she looks cute or really good in her outfit a proposition? This is a rather slippery slope, and without clear intent and explicit photos of meassaging, it is a stretch. That her husband took offense is sufficient to prove bad taste, but hardly much else. It is like being nearly nude and it is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Mike A. hit the nail on the head. This guy may be intelligent and competent, but he is still an idiot and should not be on the bench.
Bron, you nailed it. I haven’t reviewed the DSM-IV lately, but I’m hoping ‘bat-shit’ crazy is there; if not, they need to include it in the new edtion.
Pardon, ARE, not B.
ARB,
I don’t think lewd has anything to do with the inappropriateness of this instance. That he sent a solicitous picture to a married court employee is the relevant factor and apparently was proud of himself for doing so. Would you like it if your wife worked for me and I sent her a picture that was meant as a proposition whether I was clothed or not or whether my genitals were exposed or not? I don’t think so. Most spouses wouldn’t find that appropriate or acceptable in the slightest.
So according to you, even fully clothed, sending a photo of himself is a proposition. I find that a bit extreme and irrational. Now I would agree with you if he had a dildo in his hands, but he is holding a cell phone which to my knowledge is not considered a sex toy. If this photo were sent to my wife under the circumstances, I would think the guy is a bit off and narcissitic, but no more. it would hardly get my blood pressure up. Or I could use the Youngman dodge, and say Now take my wife. PLEASE!
Then the problem is that I am now nearly nude since I am in shorts and T-shirt, and for Eskimos in winter, this would definitely be considered nearly nude. Or in Islamic countries, sending a photo of a fully clothed woman in western dress is nearly nude and a proposition. I prefer not to mimic such idiocy. Let me know when he does something that is truly lewd and/or offensive.
Just another question. What is nearly nude? Is it like nearly pregnant?
Sorry, but no banana on this one. As pointed out in Miller vs California lewd is defined as exhibiting genitals. Unless she has X-ray vision, this hardly meets the standard. Unless you think that current bathing suits are lewd, then you have no case. While it is of questionable taste and conduct, it in no way comes close to Weiner who showed off his weiner.
You would think someone smart enough to go to Stanford Law would be smart enough to know better. But then one of my doctors told me you dont need to be smart to graduate from medical school, I guess the same applies to law school.
Or maybe the guy is just bat shit crazy?
lol I wasn’t going to mention that, Mike A., but you are indeed correct, sir.
And his game is lame.
“Hot dog, yep that’s me. I’ve got no shame in my game. I ain’t talking to nobody else’s wife. You can almost get that here and now.”
Well too bad your lack of shame has no bearing on whether or not your actions were appropriate, Judge McCree, and I’m sure it will comfort the Review Board that you apparently are only choosing to interfere with the marriage of one court employee instead of expanding your net to interfere with the marriages of yet more couples. Only trying to be a homewrecker in one instance is sooooo much better than being a mass homewrecker. Based on your response, I won’t rule out that you could be a serial homewrecker. It’s times like this I almost wish simply being a jackass was against the law.
“By the way, McCree is reportedly an expert on sexual misconduct cases.”
The key word being “reportedly”.
The heights that misogyny has reached is making me physically ill. From the Supreme Court on down, our judges are proving they are not fit for their duties.
That last line? Takes one to know one.