A liberal-bashing book by a veteran St. Louis judge is to become available publicly this week, but it is already causing a stir in political and legal circles — and prompting some to say it could cost him his job.Chapter 1 of Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.'s book, "The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault," has circulated via e-mail since last month and been widely read in legal circles, lawyers and judges say.The sentiments expressed in that chapter, which frequently uses the term "femifascists" and is titled "The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism," have already prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges....
Chapter 1 of Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.'s book, "The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault," has circulated via e-mail since last month and been widely read in legal circles, lawyers and judges say.
The sentiments expressed in that chapter, which frequently uses the term "femifascists" and is titled "The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism," have already prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges.
Other judges and lawyers have said that Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit. One judge said it would be surprising if Dierker was not removed, calling the book "professional suicide."
Dierker is living a charmed life, as all of his critics seem to have been hired from the temp agency "Proving Your Point For you."
Judges contacted by the Post-Dispatch, including many of Dierker's St. Louis colleagues, would not comment publicly. Privately, they complain that Dierker didn't warn them of the book, or offer a preview.
What may be the only public shot at Dierker came at a Dec. 18 judges' meeting. In a discussion of hiring of a spokesperson, Circuit Judge Jimmie Edwards suggested such a person might also function as a "judges' book review" to prevent them from "offending the bench."
Am I the only one to find the notion of a censorship board to approve what a citizen of this country is allowed to say in order that judges not be "offended," much scarier than the notion that there might be conservative judges speaking their mind? If the mere fact that such an idea was broached doesn't go a long in justifying the use of the term facist I don't know what would. It is a very simple rule. If you don't want to be called a facist, make sure you are not acting like one.
The PD, of course is not content to just report on the story. Oh no, they are not above a little character assasination.
The first chapter was heavily discussed at the recent holiday party for the Women Lawyers' Association of Greater St. Louis.
One judge who attended noted, "Everyone's just pretty much shocked."
Association President Lynn Ricci said, "I have read it. I find it disturbing." She also said, "I frankly think that it is a shame that this very smart man has lowered himself to name-calling."
Although Ricci said she has not studied the chapter, she said, "It appears that he's cloaking his own personal preferences against women in alleged legal research and a partial examination of the law."
Dierker, who has been on the bench since 1986, has repeatedly been passed over for advancement.
Thank God, the PD writer was not skilled enough to actually disguise the non-sequitar here. As written it works are a brilliant piece of comic relief.
Can he be impartial?
He may face repercussions in the courtroom.Lawyers could cite the book as evidence that Dierker is unable to be impartial on issues involving women, or liberals, or the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, forcing his removal from cases.
Dierker responds that he is always fair in the courtroom, and paraphrases the book: "Conservative judges are much more likely to know where their biases are and how to draw the line."
I find it informative that the man has been a judge since 1986 and yet the PD, nor anyone else provides a SINGLE example of Dierker acting in a biased manner. Obviously, the determining factor is his writing a polemic that favors conservative ideas instead of liberal. The 20 years of actual behavior count for exactly nothing.
I suppose the lesson is you can be a conservative as long as you act like a second class citizen.
The PD has also provided helpful quotes that I presume are to show the inflammatory nature of Dierker's book. Here are the beyond the pale statements:
— "Just as we saw with the femifascists, illiberal liberals don't want equality; they want to make some people more equal than others. And they've made it happen through their dominance of the courts over the past seventy-five years. Liberals have converted the courts from the 'least dangerous' branch of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers to the most dangerous." (from a chapter titled "Making some Americans more equal than others" about the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law)
— "This is liberal law in a nutshell. History and tradition count for nothing; the language of the Constitution itself counts for little; the only criterion is whether a ruling will advance the liberal agenda." (from the chapter "Ozzie and Harriet are dead" about abortion and the attack on the traditional family)
— " ...The Constitution died on April 18, 1990, as a direct result of the liberal pursuit of racial 'equality.'" (from the chapter "Taxation for Tolerance" about school desegregation and desegregation rulings that allow judges to impose taxes)
The horror....the horror.
No comments:
Post a Comment