June 6, 2013

"Frankly, whenever I see a complaint alleging racism these days, I assume it’s a political hatchet job by political hacks."

"That assumption is generally borne out," says Instapundit, linking to this (of mine) and to Above The Law's "A Tale of Sound & Fury (But No Transcript): In Defense of Judge Edith Jones."

My post — "Character assassination attempted on 5th Circuit Judge Edith Jones" — encouraged people who actually attended Jones's talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School to write to me. I'm still hoping someone made a recording, but I did get this response from someone who attended (and who gave me permission to reprint this):
On February 20, 2013, the Penn Federalist Society hosted Judge Edith Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Jones was formerly chief judge for that court and is a prominent and well respected conservative judge. The topic was Federal Courts and the Death Penalty. The event was not recorded, but was, as with all of our events, open to the public. We normally do not record events.

The event was well attended, even drawing in members of the community, or so we assumed since we did not recognize these individuals. On April 12, a paralegal from Feldman, Orlansky & Sanders in Anchorage, AK, emailed the law school’s communications department to inquire whether the event had been recorded. Yesterday, an amalgam of special interest groups and individuals signed an ethics complaint against Judge Jones for her remarks. Most prominent is Marc Bookman, a Philadelphia-area attorney who has been happy to provide statements to the press and whose affidavit the student affidavits all refer to as the standard.

Religion

Judge Jones spoke about the death penalty. She was careful to distinguish between the constitutionality, morality, and effectiveness of capital punishment, presumably hoping that her audience was capable of understanding her distinctions. She dispensed with the constitutional question quickly, invoking the familiar argument that it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. She also unsurprisingly does not believe that the meaning of the text is susceptible to updating outside the Article V amendment process.

The moral argument was separated out to no avail, apparently. Judge Jones spoke about her faith tradition and the role of capital punishment in the Jewish holy texts (here I would assume most people know that these are part of the Christian Bible). She spoke of the possibility that execution was more humane and that, in many instances, it represented the only course of action that would lead the killer to repentance. She referenced a thought-provoking article that suggested the Roman Catholic Church once agreed with this position.

There is nothing unseemly or improper about a judge having personal moral convictions, whether they are extremely common beliefs (as here) or otherwise.

Judge Jones explicitly declined to cite the Bible as “legal support” for the death penalty, as the Complaint alleges on p 7, quoting Ex. Ep5. She clearly said that she was addressing separately the questions of the death penalty’s moral, legal, and constitutional justifications. It is surprising that someone should be so offended by Judge Jones’ use of moral language to discuss the morality of capital punishment.

Judge Jones deliberately and carefully separated the moral question from the legal and constitutional issues in the death penalty. The goal of this was to disentangle what is often confused.

Race

During her remarks, Judge Jones addressed several of the more common arguments against the death penalty. Among these is the contention that the penalty disproportionately falls on racial or ethnic minorities. It is worth noting that Judge Jones acknowledged this fact and acknowledged that it is not a good thing. She pointed out, however, that the real tragedy is that these communities normally do have a higher crime rate, and tend to have a dramatically higher violent crime rate. She also observed that much of the Mexican drug trade tends to be carried on by Hispanics, an inescapable reality in the Southwest border state where Judge Jones resides.

These demographics don’t make anyone happy, and Judge Jones was not making light of the problem they present. It was here, among other times, that several of the students (in their affidavits) claim they looked around and saw the shock and outrage on the faces of their peers. One of the students, a black man in the back of the room, asked Judge Jones to clarify whether she meant that these groups are actually predisposed towards violent crime. As Mr. Bookman’s own testimony (p28) reveals, she explicitly said that this was not her contention but rather that she was pointing out a statistical fact.

I point out the questioner’s race because lurking amidst the rest of these claims is the real issue of privilege, in this case (my own) white privilege. Most of the other claims of widespread dismay and displeasure reflect on the temperament of the offendee, but not this one. As a white man, I don’t know what it is like to have others cavalierly declare that people with my skin color commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. If that were happening, I would insist on clarification and careful language each and every time, too. Judge Jones did clarify though, and she disclaimed any suggestion that she meant that a person’s race is determines his criminal propensity. Again, I will not dispute that people with different backgrounds may have been affected differently by her words.

The complaint reaches even greater levels of disrepute. It points to several capital cases in which expert psychological testimony was offered to the effect that the defendant’s race was a factor in the level of danger he posed in the future. The State of Texas publicly denounced this testimony. The complaint asserts that Judge Jones “maintains and publicly defends the very unconstitutional, biased beliefs that the State of Texas has rightly repudiated.”

Judge Jones did – and does – nothing of the sort. She was making no claims about individual defendants, psychology, or sentencing. She was answering the question, “Why are some groups incarcerated at rates higher than their proportion in the population at large?” and pointed out that the fact that those groups commit more crimes may have some connection to it. Her lecture was not about the causes of demographic trends and she refrained from speculating thereabout.

Mental Retardation

Judge Jones expressed skepticism at claims of mental retardation as a defense to capital murder, in part because a capital murder conviction has elements that cut against mental retardation. There is no impropriety in a judge observing that a convict slated for execution is willing to make claims that may not be true.

The complaint attempts to foment an atmosphere of outrage by insisting on putting “mental retardation” in quotes, insisting that “intellectually disabled” is the preferred term. Unlike the complaint, I do not use the term in quotes because the Supreme Court does not use the term in quotes, nor do the courts of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d. 24 (Pa. 2011)), Alabama (Yeomans v. State, 2013 WL 1284361 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)); or Minnesota (Chambers v. State, 2013 WL 2364079 (Minn. 2013)), just to take a few random examples from a cite check of Atkins. The complaint cites cases (footnote 11) that also use the term. Whatever the merits of what we should call those with diminished intellectual ability, Judge Jones is not calling them “imbeciles” or “morons.”

Not once did Judge Jones express a desire or intention to change the Atkins rule; even less did she give any suggestion that she would refuse to follow it in the courtroom. The complaint’s allegation that Judge Jones “expressed extreme bias… against the law of the United States” is patently frivolous.

Other Frivolous Claims

Innocence. Especially since DNA testing became reliable and widespread, the question of a death row inmate’s actual innocence has been prominent. Judge Jones remarked that these cases are extraordinarily rare and that in her experience defendant successes are due to technicalities, not innocence. The complaint makes no attempt to connect these comments to any impropriety, nor even that the claims are false.

Foreign Nationals: The complaint asserts that Judge Jones denigrated the system of justice in Mexico, then goes on to cite to testimony that does not support that claim. She is certainly right that Mexico does not provide defendants with lengthy appeals with an attorney, all at the state’s expense. I recently discovered that Mexico generally does not have an adversarial justice system. In light of that, Judge Jones’s comments about convicts preferring American correctional facilities were understated.

Individual Cases: Judge Jones was disgusted at heinous crimes committed by convicted criminals. The complaint suggests that because some of the individuals she discussed are still alive that they could come before her in future litigation. Anyone on the planet might come before the Fifth Circuit at some point. The Complaint only suggests that her disgust at brutal murders committed by yet-to-be-executed convicts is somehow inappropriate. Canon 3 (6) (A) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges prohibits judges from “public comment on the merits” of a pending or impending case. This she did not do. She discussed only publicly available facts that were the basis of a capital conviction by a jury. The canon goes on to say “The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend… to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.” The Federalist Society exists to complement formal legal education by providing promoting discourse on important social and legal issues. Although Judge Jones did not discuss the merits of the cases, she

Comments about the Supreme Court. Judge Jones criticized the development of some aspects of U.S. law, noting that some decisions have led to confusion. Her remarks respectful of the Court while criticizing past decisions, and she has demonstrated her willingness to follow the law even when she disagrees with it. She joined a panel in overturning a denial of habeas relief based on intervening Supreme Court precedent in Garcia v. Quarterman, 257 Fed. Appx. 717 (2007).

Emotional Reaction (and the Dramatic Ending)

The complaint also alleges that it was just such bad form for a judge to express emotion. Judge Jones expressed disapproval of those who attempt to evade their sentence by claiming mental incompetence. She was passionate about justice for evil men who slaughtered innocent people. She was passionate for the parents who watched as their child’s killer evaded his sentence on a technicality.

As the event was coming to a close (it was about 1:15 and we try, though usually fail, to end around 1:00), one of the nonstudent audience members asked a question. The question was why we should particularly care what the founding generation thought of the Constitution, since many of them owned slaves, and women did not vote, etc. It is unclear if the questioner meant we should discard the entire Constitution or only those parts that are not to our liking.

The question was so provocatively asked that I looked around and saw that some people were surprised. Students later told me they thought it was rudely presented. The questioner was, after all, challenging the legitimacy of the United States Constitution to an Article III judge. Rather than lead Mr. Bookman down the path of semantic meaning and constitutionalism, or decline his provocation outright, Judge Jones responded briefly and judiciously by defending the value of the Constitution and the nation that it constituted.

Since the time allocated for the event had passed, the president thanked the audience for their participation and we ended the event. The “abrupt” ending referenced in the complaint should not be attributed to Judge Jones or the content of her lecture—it is how the vast majority of our meetings must end because question and answer usually closes the meeting, and people often have a lot to say.

95 comments:

Achilles said...

The left is proving what some already knew. They are fascists with an amoral code that will do anything to those they disagree with.

Rick Caird said...

I agree with both you and Glenn. The statements attributed to her are hard to believe anyone would make.

James Pawlak said...

When & if we determine the truth/lies of witnesses I will fully support capitol punishment.


Until that time, it is the democratically established choice of the People in any jurisdiction.

Executions by short-drop hanging was usual when the Bill Of Rights was established. "Evolving standards of decency" is an unconstitutional judicial invention by those who wish to amend the Constitution without going to the People.

Chip S. said...

This is blogging at its best.

Good on Althouse for soliciting this, and many thanks to her correspondent for providing the careful and detailed description of the event.

DADvocate said...

The left is proving what some already knew. They are fascists with an amoral code that will do anything to those they disagree with.

Excellent summary.

X said...

Glenn Reynolds has long advocated bringing your own camera for your own record for just this reason.

Carol said...

Hard to read for the bad writing! Is this a 1L trying to sound lawyerly?

Achilles said...

DADvocate said...
The left is proving what some already knew. They are fascists with an amoral code that will do anything to those they disagree with.

Excellent summary.


6/6/13, 1:46 PM

Let me summarize the Republican Party too. Loyal "Opposition" all too happy to side with the fascists against the people. Immigration Reform? Gun Control? What is the House doing? The leadership is a false flag run by blue bloods and wasps.

Paco Wové said...

So, it seems like this was an orchestrated and coordinated attack. Why this judge? Why now?

Ann Althouse said...

"Hard to read for the bad writing! Is this a 1L trying to sound lawyerly?"

This is not badly written. It is what you know it is: lawyerly style.

Chip S. said...

Why this judge? Why now?

What cases might be coming before her soon?

David said...

Ok now I get it.

This was a Federalist Society event.

So it's not really about the judge, or at least not primarily about her.

This is about trying to intimidate future speakers at Federalist Society and other conservative events.

Liberals are indeed the new fascists.

I use the word fascist with full understanding of its inflammatory impact. Unfortunately this is the most clear and accurate way to express what the impulse here is.

Michael K said...

"Let me summarize the Republican Party too. Loyal "Opposition" all too happy to side with the fascists against the people. Immigration Reform? Gun Control? What is the House doing? The leadership is a false flag run by blue bloods and wasps."

Achilles, you might consider reading The Ruling Class if you haven't read it already. It is to the point.

David said...

It's not badly written at all. The writer presents the facts, without rhetorical embellishment. The facts are powerful. Plus a commendable limitation on adjectives and adverbs.

edutcher said...

That assumption is almost always correct.

Especially coming from the NAACP.

(and I remember when it was an admirable organization)

Methadras said...

I don't think character assassination goes far enough for leftists. They would rather actually have her assassinated.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tibore said...

"Frankly, whenever I see a complaint alleging racism these days, I assume it’s a political hatchet job by political hacks."

Amen.

Curious George said...

"Paco Wové said...
So, it seems like this was an orchestrated and coordinated attack. Why this judge? Why now?"

Seriously? Because they can, so why not.

Nomennovum said...

Racism accusations may seldom be borne out, but the narritive is reinforced (that conservatives are racists) and the damage is done.

And that's all that counts for the Left.

Big Mike said...

Frankly, any journalist or critical thinker who started with that assumption is a little leaguer.

Oh, really? And which rock have you been living under? Let me know when you choose to live in the real world of the 21st century.

tom scott said...

Thanks so much professor for pursuing this subject. I really found the response you printed to be very interesting. As a high school GED with some college I had little difficulty in comprehending what was related by your source.
Politics has become so hyper-partisan
that it is beginning to remove all enjoyment, enlightenment, etc from discussions and argument. The search for truth or correctness is taking a back seat to winning the argument.
Thanks again.

campy said...

Anyone who disbelieves a racism accusation is a racist!

heyboom said...

I found this eyewitness account to be very well written. It was neither hyperbolic nor emotive. The careful distinctions made by the author stand in stark contrast to what is happening on the other side of the argument.

If he is in fact a 1L (which I don't believe for a second) , he has a distinguished future ahead of himself.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nonapod said...

Journalists and philosophers have a different standard than some dudes hanging out in a barbershop, or comments section.

Journalists have standards? Like Candy Crowley?

Chip S. said...

phx debates himself!

He might win one for a change.

Virgil Hilts said...

Mao would be proud of these kids - taking a cue from both the JournoListers and the urban teenagers who stage mass surprise attacks on individuals and small businesses. We need a name for this new tactic. I propose:

"liberal fascist flash mob"

William said...

There's not much downside to falsely accusing someone of racism. These charges---and their probity is irrelevant--will discredit the judge in an enduring way. The accusers will shrug off the rebuttal and suffer no damage to their reputation. Rather the opposite. Their reputation for activism and initiative will be enhanced.....It's the basic unfairness of this arrangement that is so goading.

rcommal said...

Althouse, thanks for posting this account.

Synova said...

I have the same skepticism for charges of racism, homophobia, sexism, all of it.

It's SAFE to assume that the person crying wolf is, at minimum, exaggerating.

After all.. War on Women! OMG! Obama doesn't look like the guys on the Money! No one opposed Big Government until the president was a Black Guy, not once! Perry had a Rock. OMG! Travon Martin was a saint! 18 year olds are never reported for statutory rape unless they're lesbians! OMG! Some old white science fiction dude used the term "lady" in a column and must be expelled and the field purified! Elizabeth Moon SCARES me! OMG! I saw a guy with a bag of chicken and I was made to feel unsafe on campus!

It's STUPID not to assume that charges of racism are baloney because 90% of the time you'll be correct.

Lem said...

Unless the offended party produces a transcript or a recording of the lecture or whatever it was that offended them, the burden of proof should NOT be on the judge.

Just based on the principles of common courtesy and decency.

buck smith said...

As a white male of Southern US ancestory, I constantly hear people accuse my "ethnic group" of racism and guilt-trip us for history of slavery in the US. I just don't have the group identification mentality enough to really be bothered or take it that seriously. If my son commits a crime I may feel some responsibility or guilt for it. If my father does not as much. Then you talk about people three or generations back.

Ambrose said...

It is absurd to think that a bona fide unrepentant racist could rise to be a Circuit court judge in this day and age. ... and no one ever knew - until some alert citizen heard the dog whistle at a Penn law public forum.

Jay said...

phx said...
Frankly, any journalist or critical thinker who started with that assumption is a little leaguer.


Is this supposed to be an example of an argument?

DADvocate said...

Let me summarize the Republican Party too. Loyal "Opposition" all too happy to side with the fascists against the people. Immigration Reform? Gun Control? What is the House doing? The leadership is a false flag run by blue bloods and wasps

You'll get no argument from me. They both want power, power over us.

Jay said...

Frankly, whenever I see a complaint alleging racism these days, I assume it’s a political hatchet job by political hacks.

Well, me too. But I never gave a shit what a bunch of lilly white leftists who grew up in lilly white bubble's said or thought about race.

The NAACP is a silly bunch of Democrats and SPLC is a hate group.

So congrats leftists, you've now made it so the term "racist" has no utility.

JorgXMcKie said...

phx is a racist.

Paddy O said...

"White guilt" or "White privilege" is the new version of "Christ-killers" and "Curse of Ham."

It's a generalizing charge that bears little regard for specific experiences or people or histories. It oppresses particular people, many of whom bear the weight of non-racial oppressions, as a response to a small number of more widely privileged people. It's a very upper middle class malady, as though they atone for their own guilt experience of privilege by making sure everyone who shares their skin pigment shares their guilt.

slarrow said...

Frankly, any journalist or critical thinker who started with that assumption is a little leaguer.

Of course, because a "critical thinker's" real response to such an assumption is to call those who hold it childish names. That's how we bring real class and rigorous thinking to the debate.

Mitch H. said...

Huh. Althouse's source must be pretty young, I'm surprised to encounter the "white privilege" jargon outside of the usual context. As far as I can tell, wittering on about "privilege" usually is a sign that the author has been terminally mis-educated and is rabidly oikophobic. Is this is a generational thing, and the term is so pervasive in today's schools that even an otherwise reasonable Federalist Society type would use it without reflection?

But maybe I'm overreacting when I interpret the language of "white privilege" to include within its assumptions the idea that the white majority is and ought to be culturally disenfranchised, and their individual opinions ought to be ignored at best and suppressed if necessary.

Gahrie said...

Why this judge? Why now?

A) (as has already been stated) It was a federalist Society event, and the purpose is as much to discredit the Federalist Society.

B) 10 or 20 years from now, this judge might be a potential nominee to the Supreme Court. The Left is laying down markers now. It is a pattern they have shown every time a conservative minority judge begins to make a name for themselves.

AprilApple said...

Martin Bashir - the resident idiot at the joke network MSDNC - says that if you say "IRS" you are a racist.

Really.

Seriously.

AprilApple said...

Leftists have no trouble lying.

No trouble at all....

Rob Crawford said...

As a white man, I don’t know what it is like to have others cavalierly declare that people with my skin color commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

Really? Has this idiot listened to what comes out of academia?

Paco Wové said...

"As a white man, I don’t know what it is like to have others cavalierly declare that people with my skin color commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime."

But what about the author's sex? I could swear that I've heard people talk about the troublesome male propensity for violence, crime, drunkenness, etc.

JAL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

Now I am totally confused. All of the evidence I have seen so far indicates the judge is not a racist but Ritmo is convinced she is a racist.

K in Colorado said...

Should we start using some of the same tacticts back? File ethics charges against any lawyer that filed charges on her? File complaints against the students for whatever might fit under student code. It seems to me this was planned in advance and the knew exactly what they were going to do. As someone else pointed out, I too believe this is part of a strategy to silence or censor potential speakers for conservative groups.

K in Colorado said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAL said...

It's like the proverbial Emperor- has-no-clothes schtick -- only not.

Judge states that more crime is committed by blacks and -- KABOOM!!!

The Emperor's minions scream and kick and punch and accuse the judge of being a racist.

She who speaks the truth must be destroyed. (I sure wish blogger had the strikeout code available.)

CDC 2010
Homicides by firearms >11,000
Black males homicide by firearms victims = >5,500 (and they were almost all shot by blacks. And possibly a couple white hispanics.)
Black males = ~6% of the US population.

So just throw more and more money at the problem through the Feds, the foundations, and, by all means, use community organizers.

JAL said...

But whatever you do, do not admit that it is a huge problem and skews much of our crime data.

Call the judge a racist for speaking it.

(Whatever happened to that "speaking truth to power" stuff?)

Mark said...

Because everyone knows guys in barber shops are too stupid and uncouth to know which way the wind blows.

Mark said...

Interesting that phx would group journalists with philosophers. It's almost like he believes some Higher Authority should have the power to say who can and can't publish news and analysis.

Squid said...

This was a Federalist Society event. So it's not really about the judge, or at least not primarily about her. This is about trying to intimidate future speakers at Federalist Society and other conservative events.

This bears repeating. This attack is about silencing a conservative judge, and making it impossible for groups like the Federalist Society to present conservative views to interested audiences.

If people start hearing "unapproved" messages and ideas, they may become prone to doubleplus ungoodthink. And our leftist would-be overlords simply can't have that.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

As a white man, I don’t know what it is like to have others cavalierly declare that people with my skin color commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

Every time a white guy carries out a mass shooting we hear talking heads repeating the (false, as it so happens) claim that white men are disproportionately likely to engage in mass murder.

Just an observation.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Journalists and philosophers have a different standard than some dudes hanging out in a barbershop, or comments section.

Ignoring what is fairly obvious because it conflicts with what one wishes to believe is not a 'standard.' It's just dishonest.

The Godfather said...

I may live in a bubble, but my observation is that the amount of real white racism that I see today is incredibly lower than what I saw when I was a youngster or a young adult (say late '50's to early '70's). I don't mean that there aren't some bigots out there, but they mostly keep quiet about it (it's not the world of "The Help" anymore). My observations seem to be confirmed by the fact that race hustlers and activists really have to dig deep -- or make things up -- to find evidence of white racism "in action" today. Which seems to be what's going on with Judge Jones.

campy said...

Every time a white guy carries out a mass shooting we hear talking heads repeating the (false, as it so happens) claim that white men are disproportionately likely to engage in mass murder.

Don't you know lefties are allergic to facts, you racist you?

CWJ said...

I went back and read the embedded quote in the original post. My original reaction upon first reading and now subsequently confirmed is "So?." As Althouse said, she gave a speech.

Other than Fen's law, I just don't get it. Other than leftist fainting spells what is the problem?

I now see that some poor shmoe at UPenn has now had to spend his precious time crafting a careful dispassionate reply to the aggrieved's outrageous outrage. The poor guy's wasted more time than this deserves, and gets his writing style dissed in the bargain.

The complainers throw a temper tantrum and the adults have to calmly reason with them. Really? The only response this actually deserves is "Bite me!"

Not a rational debating to be sure. But neither was the original complaint.

CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
From Inwood said...

Good Grief.

This reminds me of the Fordham President banning Ann Coulter.

But that approach is not guaranteed. Not all speakers chosen by Conservative groups have Ann's reputation, so we must go further & label them all with a Scarlet "A", here by a lawsuit.

As noted above:
This bears repeating. This attack is about silencing a conservative judge, and making it impossible for groups like the Federalist Society to present conservative views to interested audiences.

If people start hearing "unapproved" messages and ideas, they may become prone to doubleplus ungoodthink. And our leftist would-be overlords simply can't have that.


Thanks for this post

Terry said...

"A critical thinker's response is to look for and evaluate the evidence of the particular case."

So'critical thinkers' can't make general rules as you did with your 'Frankly, any journalist or critical thinker who started with that assumption is a little leaguer.' remark?
I don't think that your brain is working quite right today, phx.

Rusty said...

ot quite. A critical thinker's response is to look for and evaluate the evidence of the particular case.


Not all claims of racism deserve equal weight.
Since most claims of racism are for the purpose of political advantage, the burden now lies with the claimant.

Titus said...

Let's wait until the facts cum out.

We should not make any judgments.

Jay said...

phx said...

Not quite. A critical thinker's response is to look for and evaluate the evidence of the particular case.


Since you've admitted on this very blog you don't read about a lot of the issues discussed and have little interest in finding out more about the topics, how would you know?

CWJ said...

Jay,

Just a guess. But I would expect phx to reply that (s)he has never claimed to be a critical thinker (but knows what critical thinkers would do).

Saying nothing confidently is what phx does best. Without smug.....

Jay said...

Here is our sweet little critical thinker at work:

phx said...

Thanks for checking into it a little deeper. I count on people with credibility doing the work - I confess to being a little lazy and usually not all that interested. But it's good to hear.

5/10/13, 6:02 PM


Isn't that nice?

Q said...

As a white man, I don’t know what it is like to have others cavalierly declare that people with my skin color commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.


Obviously an elderly white man, since if he had attended college any time in the last few decades he would have heard about the violent criminality of white men at some considerable length.

Of course you can get the same message from watching television. Based on a survey of the most popular crime drama's I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of murderers in the US are actually white men - and usually middle-class to upper-class white men at that. And the typical murder victim is a pretty young white woman.

dwm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Q said...

Judge Jones - "I don't think all these black defendants are really mentally retarded".

NAACP - "Oh yes they are!. Those brothers are dumb as a box of hammers! You racist you!"

Jay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...


As a white man, I don’t know what it is like to have others cavalierly declare that people with my skin color commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.


Except it isn't "cavalier" since it is true.

Jay said...

phx said...

Not quite. A critical thinker's response is to look for and evaluate the evidence of the particular case.


Uh, right;

phx said...
Having read about this a little more it seems pretty small potatoes. I see nothing wrong with this except that they used 'tea party' and 'patriot' as a label. But the label was for ALL 501(c) applications not just Tea Party ones.

Thanks for checking into it a little deeper. I count on people with credibility doing the work - I confess to being a little lazy and usually not all that interested. But it's good to hear.
5/10/13, 6:02 PM


Note the ital part phx agreed with was utter bullshit.

Note that phx has no fucking clue what critical thinking is.

Chip S. said...

In response to
phx debates himself!

He might win one for a change.


phx said...

And you might not lose one for a change!

You are a master of grade-school repartee.

I salute you.

phx said...

You are a master of grade-school repartee.

Fuck. Bested by Chip S. again.

Chip S. said...

My dad can beat up your dad, too.

phx said...

You KNOW my dad's dead Chip! You're so mean!

How's things going with you btw?

Illuninati said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Illuninati said...

Thankyou Ann for the good update.

The left has abused the word racism so much that we need to stop and question exactly what it means today. Is it racist to make false accusations against a judge because she is white and mentions some uncomfortable facts about race? Apparently on the left, persecuting someone because of her race is only racism if the person is a member of one of their protected victim groups.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zeb Quinn said...

Marc Bookman, a Philadelphia-area attorney who has been happy to provide statements to the press and whose affidavit the student affidavits all refer to as the standard

Seems as though Mr. Bookman needs to have an ethical complaint lodged against him with the PA bar for swearing out a false affidavit. That's what he would do, after all.

Crunchy Frog said...

To date, nobody has come forward to claim the $100K that Breitbart offered to anyone that can document on tape that D Rep John Lewis was actually spit on and called racist slurs like he claimed he was. There is plenty of videotape that shows nothing of the sort happening.

Gee, it almost seems like the dear Congresscritter was lying out his ass.

The cry of Racism! is the only tool the racist left has in its collective toolbox.

phx said...

Here is our sweet little critical thinker at work:

phx said...

Thanks for checking into it a little deeper. I count on people with credibility doing the work - I confess to being a little lazy and usually not all that interested. But it's good to hear.

5/10/13, 6:02 PM

Isn't that nice?


ROFLMBAO!!! There's a fanboi who's saving my POSTS!

phx said...

Jeez some of you guys really DO gotta get out of your basement more.
That's not just an insult anymore. That's therapeutic advise.

Jay! @Jay! I'm talkin' to you!

phx said...

Thanks for checking into it a little deeper. I count on people with credibility doing the work - I confess to being a little lazy and usually not all that interested. But it's good to hear.

5/10/13, 6:02 PM


I think that's kind of sweet. Jay's hanging on to my post from a month ago. He's reposting it!

These guys'll be suckin my dick in no time.

Mark said...

It's been said often enough, but if you're conservative and you're going to speak for public consumption you really have to make sure you have someone you trust getting it on video.

wildswan said...

"I may live in a bubble, but my observation is that the amount of real white racism that I see today is incredibly lower than what I saw when I was a youngster or a young adult"

I agree. Back then a racist statement wasn't a "dog whistle", it wasn't an "implication" that a little ambush group agreed in advance to see at the Federalist Society. Racism was right out in the open and right ugly - and if you disagreed aloud there was deep anger to face, shouting and name calling and friends turning away. The anger was real. It would be like telling your liberal friends that you oppose abortion.

DEEBEE said...

Thanks Ann

X said...

phx said...
These guys'll be suckin my dick in no time.


the great critical thinker and substantive arguer of our time.

Adam said...

First of all, I commend you for starting your article with the admission that when you hear an allegation of racism, you "assume" it is untrue. I'm sure you already know the old maxim about what it means when you "assume". Next, there is simply a LOT to take issue with in the speech. She said that actual innocence claims are "red herrings" which damage the integrity of the criminal justice system...never mind the fact that many of those actual innocence writs have been issued in cases where someone was sentenced to death and it was subsequently scientifically PROVEN that they got the wrong person. I guess you, like Judge Jones, don't have a problem with that, and would have executed those innocent citizens. In papering over this near-tragedy, she justifies that more people innocent people are killed in drone strikes than by the death penalty...implying that the judiciary should not trouble itself over the execution of innocents UNTIL they are killing more innocents than any other societal force. Next, we don't have a transcript of her exact language as to statistically skewed racial representation in jails and death row...whether she implied propensity or simply referenced the current statistical numbers...but why is she going into that at all? Setting aside the fact that a person with half a brain would recognize what a hornets' nest it is, why would you go into the subject unless you were either speaking about it from a point of concern, advocating correction (which she clearly wasn't), OR were somehow referencing it as a predictive model which DOES implicate predisposition, which is inarguably racist? You are asking us to be really naively stupid to not analyze her statements in this light, ESPECIALLY in light of her other statements. Finally, she stated that not executing the mentally retarded is a "disservice" to them; how so? This statement is ridiculous and seems indefensible, but I'm waiting for the defense...it just isn't forthcoming. I don't think the mentally retarded aren't insulted if we don't execute them, nor are they insulted if we don't execute one of their intellectual peers. She stated that execution is also "more humane", which doesn't explain why pretty much every person sentenced to it fights it tooth and nail. It's fine to have your own views on the death penalty, but when you just make statements with no logical or evidentiary underpinnings AT ALL, you can expect to get rightfully slammed over them. This is clearly a judge that should have never been appointed. The Federalist Society would do well to salvage any credibility they have by cutting ties with this horrible judge. The fact that even Federalist Society student attendees were bothered enough to sign affidavits is significant. The right wing has a real identity problem these days in America. They are perceived as heartless, racist elitists, and speaking events with speakers like these aren't helping ameliorate that image at all. I'm surprised by how many apologists there are for this judge in these comments. You apologists are the people that are killing your Republican party. You guys keep having these "autopsies" and "post mortems" after the elections you lose, and resolve to get away from the racist and sexist images you have married yourselves to, and then you promptly go out and nominate whackos and give podiums to racists, sexists and xenophobes. Which direction do you want to go? Into relevance, or into extinction?

Adam said...

By the way, I meant to say, "I don't think the mentally retarded ARE insulted if we don't execute them," but there is no editing function on this page once a comment is posted.

Cali Curmudgeon said...

Adam, you are so full of it. Like most leftists.....