Judge David Bernhard is a jurist in Fairfax County (where I reside) has issued a controversial order that the portraits of white judges must be removed from a courtroom because their presence would deny a black defendant a fair trial. In a decision applauded in the Washington Post, Bernhard declared that a fair trial is threatened in “a courtroom gilded with … white individuals peering down on an African American defendant.”
The public defender filed a “Motion to Remove Portraiture Overwhelmingly Depicting White Jurists Hanging in Trial Courtroom.” The motion was not opposed by Fairfax County’s recently elected lead prosecutor Steve Descano, who the Washington Post covered as one of a number of liberal prosecutors recently elected around the country.
Bernhard order explains:
The low hanging fruit of overt racism is easily identified and picked off to strengthen the tree of society. The more conventional symbols which to some impart tradition, and to others subtle oppression, are less comfortably addressed. The ubiquitous portraits of white judges are such symbols. When they were hung in the more recent past, negative connotations thereof were not a consideration. To the public at large making use of the courthouse, other than some attorneys who might have appeared before the judges portrayed, there is no context to learn about who is depicted. The portraits in sum, are of benefit to only a few insiders who might fondly remember appearing before a particular judge or to a retired judge’s family making to rare visit to the courthouse. To the public seeking justice inside the courtrooms, thus, the sea of portraits of white judges can at best yield indifference, and at worst, logically a lack of confidence that the judiciary is there to preside equally no matter the race of the participants.
We have previously discussed the removal of academic portraits and even pictures of leading writers like Shakespeare under analogous rationales.
Judge Bernhard should be credited for seeking to address concerns over racial justice and inequality. However, I disagree with this decision as I have with the removal of academic portraits. We are thankfully achieving greater diversity on our courts and on our faculties. That is being reflected in such honorary portraits. Yet, the removal of portraits not because of their records but their race is troubling.
I certainly agree that in the case of Commonwealth v. Shipp, “The Defendant’s constitutional right to a fair jury trial stands paramount.” The problem is Bernhard’s juxtapositioning of a fair trial with “the countervailing interest of adorning courtrooms with portraits that honor past jurists” who are “overwhelmingly … white individuals.” I do not agree that the mere fact that the portraits feature white jurists constitutes a message that black people are “of lesser standing.”
Under Bernhard’s logic, leading jurists who fought slavery and segregation would be removed because of their race. Thus, Earl Warren, who wrote Brown v. Board of Education, would have to be removed because he was white. The irony is crushing. Warren wrote that:
“To separate [black children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.”
Yet, under Judge Bernhard’s approach, Warren’s portrait would have to be removed because his image would create that same “feeling of inferiority” because he happened to be white. There have been many white jurists who led desegregation efforts in society and on their own courts.
While Judge Bernhard refers to the portraits as “ornaments,” it is the use of race-based criteria for their removal that is so troubling and, in my view, misguided.
OT: We have discussed Chinese interference in the US and hews. A bit of additional information.
China: Paying US Media to Publish Propaganda
‘Borrowing a Boat to Go Out on the Ocean’
by Judith Bergman • January 2, 2021 at 5:00 am
Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram Send Print
In June, China Daily filed a disclosure with the Justice Department showing that, since November 2016, it had paid $19 million to U.S. media outlets, including $12 million to newspapers such as the Washington Post and New York Times.
China Daily’s ads — in a strategy known as “borrowing a boat to go out on the ocean” — come in the form of advertising supplements, inserts called China Watch… camouflaged to look like the other news content of the media outlets in which they appear.
Continued: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16865/china-propaganda-us-media
REGARDING ABOVE:
Advertising Supplements are labeled as such. Intelligent readers aren’t confused. But Trumpers might be, judging from the media they consume.
Anon, if you take the time to read the source you would see that only one of the supplements declared themselves to be an advertisement. Cherry picking even when there are no cherries on the tree. You defend the Post and the Times acceptance of millions of dollars from the Chinese. They have to make up for a loss of readership someway. A not surprising display of an everyday modus operandi. You are correct, intelligent readers aren’t confused. In your psychological necessity to attack “Trumpsters” you defend Chinese propaganda and the enablement of China by the Post and the Times to get there word out. Why bother with actually reading the sourced material, it might conflict with your mental narrative.
Thinktrhough, we know what advertising supplements are! Regular readers of the Times and Post are ‘not’ confused. And those papers are ‘not’ losing readers despite the claims of Donald Trump. Those papers are, in fact, ‘gaining’ readers ‘because’ of Trump.
But most significantly, we’re not at war with China. There are no sanctions in place that prohibit U.S. companies from trading with Chinese firms. Half the products on Walmart’s shelves are ‘Made In China’. So what the hell are you babbling about????
You’re simply trying to paint two of our finest papers as conduits for Chinese propaganda. It’s just a stupid talking point from people who refuse to acknowledge the massive hack by Russian intel.
We used to get China Daily in my office. Cannot recall if it was a paid subscription or they just sent it over the transom. Its quite thin and formatted like a broadsheet, but without any ads in it.
Anonymous, your correct. We are not at war with China. Nor are we at war with Russia. Military and political representatives tell us that China is the greatest threat to the U.S. Your persistence in Russia Russia Russia and assumed linkage to Republicans has taken on the characteristics of a broken record. Maybe before you make a statement about the readership of the New York Times you should first employ your little typing finger to the word Google. Here’s what you type. “ New York Times readership”. The digital readership is up but the overall readership is considerably down. You make a claim thinking that those beneath you are to stupid to research it. Two things come to mind. A lack of real seriousness and a complete disrespect for those who read your words.
Question One. Did they remove the portraits of black Judges?
Question Two Has that couny ever had any black or asian or hispanic Judges?
Questioin Three Why were they up to begin with
Ref Three. The person least trustworthy in a court room in my experience on jury duty is the Judge.
Case in point. A Judge stated in his opening instructions among other comments that IF any of the jurors did not understand any of the legal points of law offered by complainant and defendant or their attorneys it would be thoroughly explained. .
The wording was the defendant did what he had a right to do (Used car sales and length of time to get it registered and iicensed and the payment to the seller) Was using the money from one sale to pay off a seller of a previous sale. However witihout going through the whole trial the jury came up with three ideas of what they thought that phrase meant. Was it explained? No. The Judge with both attorneys concurring refused to explain and stated it was up to the jury. Eighteen as I recall counts were thus thrown out by the jury who could not agree. With it went a couple of ancilary charges and only one twenty some received a verdict. based on evidence provided.
That is one case where I learned the last person in the court to trust is the Judge.
Do they go to a school to learn how to act like politicians even if they ran for an office?
There are symbols of hate and then there are symbols. Couldnt have happened to a more deserving person…
https://www.kron4.com/news/report-nancy-pelosis-home-vandalized-with-pigs-head-fake-blood/
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (KRON) — Frustration over the lack of financial support spilled out into the streets of San Francisco on Friday.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s house was vandalized with messages saying $2,000 isn’t even enough.
Vandals wasted no time with the new year as they left Pelosi’s home with fake blood and a pig’s head.
Some messages were also left for the speaker as it appears the vandals were upset with the failed $2,000 government stimulus checks.
“Cancel rent!” and “We want everything!” were seen in big black letters on Pelosi’s garage.
Why not a pony?
when pigs fly…our country is off the rails
Fresyin, we’ve never seen your name before. Just popped out of nowhere to post that?
Considering that Fairfax County is one of the most politically corrupt counties in the nation, this doesn’t surprise me at all.
semcgowanjr, show us an article from a recognizable source confirming that Fairfax County is one of the nation’s ‘most corrupt’.
Huh? Fairfax is very populous, abnormally affluent, and has an unusually large number of federal workers. Not aware it has a reputation for corruption. The moderator lives in Fairfax County, btw. My aunt lived there for 25 years. She was very involved with local politics on a volunteer basis and didn”t have any complaints about graft.
Everything from the left involves race and tribalism.
Post a picture of Thurgood Marshall. He warned us about “Sundown towns”.
“Build Back Better” isn’t here yet and I’m already sick of it.
> I certainly agree that in the case of Commonwealth v. Shipp, “The Defendant’s constitutional right to a fair jury trial stands paramount.”
Well, then this decision isn’t so bad. The portraits don’t contribute to that end, so if there’s the slightest chance that they make it less likely, why not remove them? The right to a fair trial should supersede any valid concerns about conceding a point to “anti-racist” wackos. They are aren’t wrong about absolutely everything.
If you are so “delicate” that you cannot be in the same courtroom as some benign hanging portraits of normal people, then you shouldn’t be allowed in the courtroom. It’s for adults.
You should remember that the defendant has no choice but to be in the courtroom, same for the jurors. Those portraits do send a subtle message about power in the courts, who has it and who does not.
I am not in favor of the whole woke anti-racist thing in general, but I think it is not a bad thing to remove portraits from courtrooms, white or black. Why should they be up there anyway? Justice is supposed to be blind as to who the defendant is, but also who the judges are. The law should not be about the names and faces of individual judges – it should be blind to that, judges should be interchangeable, once appointed.
If you ever walk around the halls of a courtroom with all those portraits hanging up, it does create an oppressive feel – kind of like those old big houses in England with portraits of ancestors everywhere. If you are one of them, then it reinforces your status, but for everybody else, it’s oppressive and exclusive. Keep them in those old houses and museums, but let’s remove them from a courtroom, which is not a museum for the dead, but should be a place of active justice for the living.
Oppressive, only if authority is oppressive. The judge’s robe is what counts in these photos, not the skin color under the robes…. unless the viewer says otherwise…
Clay……correct!
Black Robes Matter, and are equal opportunity apparel in this, our free society.
Then why not hang just the black robes on the walls, without portraits of the individuals wearing them?
You’re not much into logical conclusions, are you? Racists have apparently worn black robes. Ban black robes too. In fact, we will eventually have to remove all vestages of racism. And as long as perception is the measure of reality, consider everything as racist and on the chopping block.
Actually I think you are wrong about this – it is not for the robe that the portraits are painted and hung on the wall – it’s to commemorate and honor the individual judge wearing the robe. This reflects a tension and contradiction in our legal system, in that the law is supposed to be universal irrespective of individual judges. Yet we also have a common law system where individual judges shape the law with written and signed decisions that leads to individual celebrity. I like this contradiction. I like that individual judges must sign their decisions and be held accountable, rather than write anonymous decisions. But putting up their portraits in a courtroom serves no legitimate purpose for the administration of justice in that courtroom. It is the thinking and reasoning of the famous judges we celebrate, not their personal appearance. And since jurors are not expected to be legal scholars, those portraits mean nothing to the jurors except to create a visual impact of old white men staring down on them from a position of power. That is all they see, they don’t know Cardozo from Beavis and Butthead. To a juror, these portraits just reinforce their ideas of who has power in our society and who does not, who is right and who is wrong, who belongs on the bench and who belongs in jail. So the question is, do these portraits aid in the administration of justice or not? If not, why leave them up? Put them in a museum for those who appreciate legal history, not in a working courtroom in 21st century America.
Mike……….these portraits are not “sending a subtle message”. They are historic images of people who have served in the judiciary. Period. Get a grip and stop with the drama.
I guess as a woman, I have reached a level of maturity that some men can only hope for.
In short, grow up.
Actually Cindy, you are right – these portraits do not “send a subtle message” – it’s not subtle at all! The message and impression they give to the jurors, which is quite open, blatant and egregious, is this: The judges with the power in our little courthouse are mostly white! And this defendant is not! (in the case at issue). Nothing subtle about that.
That is a historical reality in our society, and cannot be denied. But why reinforce that reality for the jurors by hanging up these portraits in the courtroom? Why not put them in museums, where we put our other historical documents? Unless we want to perpetuate this reality going forward.
The methods and tactics of the woke people are generally obnoxious and repulsive, but surely we all agree that going forward, we do not wish to perpetuate the oppression of black people by white people through our criminal justice system, as we have been doing for so many years.
The judges with the power in our little courthouse are mostly white! And this defendant is not! (in the case at issue). Nothing subtle about that.
I have news for you
1. Not everyone is as race-obsessed as you are or as the judge is.
2. The population of the United States is over 60% white (and was about 90% white as recently as 1940). Most judges will be white. You might just get over it.
The methods and tactics of the woke people are generally obnoxious and repulsive,
Oh come on, that should read: Our methods and tactics are generally obnoxious and repulsive,
but surely we all agree that going forward, we do not wish to perpetuate the oppression of black people by white people through our criminal justice system, as we have been doing for so many years.
Nope. I don’t agree with your we. Sounds like you are trying to cleanse your own guilty conscience.
If a juror is more influenced by portraits on the wall, than they are by lawyers, judges, witnesses, evidence and the law, then that should be discovered through voir dire, right?
The internet seems to create this polarization where there are woke people who are truly absurd, which then creates this backlash reaction where people automatically dismiss any comment in favor racial equality as coming from the woke people, and it’s pushing some people very far in the other direction, so that they will not entertain any proposals whatsoever in support of improving the race situation in this country, which is not entirely gone. It’s like many of us want to ignore real racial inequality just to spite the woke people, and actually become a little more racist just to thumb our noses at them. I think the professor is doing this – he’s so appalled by the overreaching and abuse of the woke that he’s developing a knee-jerk reaction to anything having at all to do with race. Ok, kind of understandable, but it’s not the only response possible. Yeah the radical left are absurd, but when there is a reasonable proposal made to improve the right to a fair jury trial for black people, I think we should still do it. Portraits of individual judges in courtrooms is unnecessary, serves no legitimate judicial purpose, may affect jurors in a way detrimental to some defendants, and removing these portraits harms no one. So we should do it, even if it helps the woke people. Thinking about ways to affirm and strengthen the constitutional right to a fair jury trial is good for everybody, not just black people.
Thinking about ways to affirm and strengthen the constitutional right to a fair jury trial is good for everybody, not just black people.
You mean other than enforcing rules of judicial ethics and removing all that violate their oaths? Once the courtrooms have been completely disinfected of racism, will that purity disable the voir dire process? Why don’t we just outlaw sinful nature.
Enforcing the rules of judicial ethics against a transgressing judge is very difficult to do as a practical matter. We cannot completely disinfect the courtroom of all bias, nor can we rely on the voir dire process to do that. We cannot outlaw our sinful natures as a practical matter. However, one thing we can do is to remove these portraits. That’s one little thing that can practically be done to affirm the right to a fair jury trial in a small or not so small way. It doesn’t cost much, nor does it infringe on anybody’s rights. So why not do it.
However, one thing we can do is to remove these portraits. That’s one little thing that can practically be done to affirm the right to a fair jury trial in a small or not so small way. It doesn’t cost much, nor does it infringe on anybody’s rights. So why not do it.
I gather the sorosphere outfits told you to just keep talking and not to worry if you weren’t making any sense.
Hmm. We cannot do anything that actually removes the bad actors from our system of justice; so we’ll simply redecorate the halls of justice to give it the appearance of a place for equal justice. I believe there’s a phrase for that:
Putting lipstick on a pig.
Mike, no doubt there is racism that exists. There is also anti-semitism, anti-Catholic feelings, sex discrimination, discrimination based on weight and age along with a whole host of other things.
Discrimination is a part of life. I discriminate and choose steak over chicken. It’s part of life. Go too far (frequently for one’s own vanity) and that destroys the population people are trying so hard to protect. In fact we did that.
Equality under the law is what our government is able to strive for. A lot that we have done outside of that has been counterproductive.
Mike, no doubt there is racism that exists.
Lots of disagreeable things ‘exist’. The question at hand is whether these things are consequential enough that they should influence public policy. (The answer is, as a rule, no).
Not everyone sees everything with a racist lens. Most defendants are more worried about their futures, not the color of the portrait of a judge.
You should remember that the defendant has no choice but to be in the courtroom, same for the jurors.
Sure they have a choice. Most people don’t ever see the inside of a courtroom.
Those portraits do send a subtle message about power in the courts, who has it and who does not.
Good. How many first-time trial lawyers aren’t intimidated by the court?
One other thing I just noticed in your comment is that you say “some benign hanging portraits of NORMAL people” – as much as I dislike the woke movt, what you say kind of supports their point. These portraits are affecting what you see as “NORMAL”, and therefore abnormal – i.e., the black defendant. You probably didn’t even notice this, and that is why these portraits should be removed. If these portraits have the same effect on jurors as they have on you, then we have a problem as far as the equal administration of justice, because being viewed as not among the “normal” is a stigma that increases the chances of conviction of a defendant who is not among the “normal”. Your casual comment tends to support the “anti-racist” movement, somewhat to my chagrin.
Mike……….When you mature, and create an original thought, let me know.
I have probably forgotten more black friends and black boyfriends than you’ll ever meet.
I don’t need a lecture, Ace.
My thoughts too, with the likes of Mike. I am fairly certain I have more actual relationships with actual black friends in actual real life than they have ever even fantasized about. I have also lived in black communities and a black majority country. These fools are either too-young man-boys, extraordinarily sheltered adults, not particularly bright, or some combination thereof. Talk about cultural appropriation, sheesh. Impossible to take seriously. The proclivity on their part to cite evidence that amounts to editorialization on the internet usually makes me partial to thinking they are very young, so ‘reality appropriation’ may also apply.
James…..agree. Very well put.
Well, he also needs to then remove Governor “Black Face KKK” Northam from office. If seeing a white judge’s face peering at you when you are in the courthouse is threatening, just how much more threatening is ACTUALLY having a living governor in power, making the laws that affect persons of color? Come on, Judge. Compete the cycle of your insanity.
Lewis, we’ve never seen your name before. Just popped out of nowhere?
The Professor is far too gentle in his criticism. This “Judge” is simply another racist fool of the kind who have overtaken Fairfax County, where I lived for half a century, and now the Commonwealth as well.
In all of human history has there ever been a society where members of the elite ruling class have hated their country/empire/sovereign, and their own race, as much as white liberals hate America and their race?
Troll, you, Lewis and Wise Old Lawyer are all the same nerd.
Peter Shill: Do you wear your pink pussy hat when you Toobin yourself?
Rescind all Supreme Court decisions with majority opinions written by white men, like Harry Blackmun (Roe v. Wade).
I have come to view the “diversity and inclusion” movement as an artificial construct, especially at a time when diversity of thought is not valued and censorship is becoming commonplace. The action taken by Judge Bernhard is every bit as arbitrary as the actions taken by the social media giants in suppressing the New York Post Story about Hunter Biden before the 2020 presidential election. I agree that the use of race-based criteria to justify the removal of the portraits is misguided, but I also think that it’s a bit of an understatement.
Somewhere, Winston Smith is shaking his head and O’Brien is smiling
Is Judge Bernhard white? If so, he is intimidating to black defendants.
I have no problem with that Court Order…..so long as it also requires the removal of any Portrait of Black Judges if the Defendant is not Black,…removes all Portraits of Female Judges if the Defendant is Male….so long as it is an Order that covers all the bases I am good with it.
Simple solution…removed all the Portraits and be done with it….which means the Judge making the Order would never see his own Portrait hanging on the Wall.
Why stop there?
Juries, judges, defense attorneys, and prosecuting attorneys must all be of the same sexual orientation and ‘race’ (however that is determined) as the defendent, as much arresting officers and witnesses.
The one problem, of course, is that it may not be possible to guarantee that the victim and the accused are of the same sexual orientation and race, and witnesses are notoriously difficult to control.
But it’s worth the effort to assure that the accused gets a fair trial and is not intimidated. . . .
Sorry for the typos: defendant (not defendent), must (not much).
It is worth noting that there is no ‘scientific’ support for such demands, just opinion, and this particular line of logic leads to some very strange places and situations, where only those like you are allowed to arrest, defend, proscecute, judge, and sentence you. Sounds a bit like apartheid or segretation, and I thought real liberals opposed that sort of thing. Then again, if you insert ‘neo’ in front of anything word, you can get a hypbrid that has next to nothing in common with the original.
Does this judge declare that no iconography can be allowed in public places? Or has he simply gone mad?
There is much more of this to come. It was not so much a vote against Trump as a vote for this sort of revisionist tyranny.
If they remove all vestiges of the past, they think they can rewrite the present and future.
Thus, Earl Warren, who wrote Brown v. Board of Education, would have to be removed because he was white.
Waal, you might note under the portraits of Warren, Wm. Brennan, Wm. O Douglas and others that they had a conception of the role of the judiciary completely at odds with popular government and that their jurisprudence was humbug.
nothing surprises me anymore in this country…so a picture prevents a fair trial…do we take all pictures down in all government buildings?
Judge Bernhard should be credited for seeking to address concerns over racial justice and inequality.
He shouldn’t be credited with anything but a plane ticket to Argentina and some identity documents which indicate he is a stateless national and will be shot on the tarmac if he sets foot in the United States again.
This isn’t a reductio ad absurdam. This is the liberal mentality in our time. No one’s accomplishments matter if those accomplishments contradict the social fictions liberals are promoting in our time. No history can be told if it isn’t distorted and disfigured to fit the Official Idea. The latest is in Boston, where a statue of Abraham Lincoln has been removed.