The lecture was not recorded, but witnesses recalled a number of Jones' controversial statements. The views she expressed included not only that minorities are responsible for more violent crime than are whites, but also that claims by death row inmates that racism or arbitrariness infected their prosecutions, or that they are actually innocent or even mentally retarded, are merely "red herrings," according to those who attended the lecture. She told the law students and other attendees that she thought the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling outlawing the death penalty for the mentally retarded did intellectually disabled individuals a disservice, and that to create such an exemption from execution was a "slippery slope," reads the complaint. "In describing … what Judge Jones said about these cases, I am not able to capture the complete outrage she expressed over the crimes or the disgust she evinced over the defense raised, particularly by the defendants who claimed to be mentally retarded," reads the declaration, filed with the complaint, of veteran Pennsylvania-based death penalty attorney Marc Bookman, who attended the lecture. "Judge Jones's disgust at how these defendants were 'using mental retardation' was very evident and very disconcerting," reads the complaint.She gave a speech. You don't have the text, but you'd like to destroy her. Why not just argue and debate about the ideas? Instead, you tell us about how you — who don't like her legal decisions — felt an upswelling of emotion over whatever it was she said.
Shame on you!
This was a lecture at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, attended by many students. I find it hard to believe no one recorded the speech. I hope a recording emerges and a transcript can be made, because I would love to compare Jones's actual statement to the assertions made in the complaint.
Did any of my readers attend the lecture and make a digital recording? I'd be happy to receive it.
Posts
130 comments:
Oh dear, militant leftist organizations making the charge of racism? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!
I have a gmail address that's just my first and last name with no space.
My wisc.edu address is found on the law school website.
It was UPENN where Frank Luntz got burned with an off the record leak too.
minorities are responsible for more violent crime than are whites
Uh, they are.
She crossed the Lefties and now she gets the Full Court Alinsky.
This is how the Left keeps qualified people out of public life so that we end up with the Choom Gang.
Ann Althouse said...
Shame on you!
I love it that you feel such outrage, but you must know, particularly after the treatment the professional haters on the Left have given you over the past 2 1/2 years, these people are incapable of shame.
The end always justifies the means for them.
(have any of them ever expressed remorse to you??
Look if you hang around weed smokers and die...
C'mon.
Lots of drug deals go bad. The drug is spread around the bodies. $5000 is left behind.
This is how these drug dealers operate.
Weed is gruesome and this is proof, parents.
And the terrorists who killed and maimed so many in Boston in the name of Allah?
Never again will we let this happen until it does and forget and then, at that point, we can start identifying threats not correct in the parlance of our times?
Fucking fascists.
No Country For Old Men.
Barton Fink.
Disgustibus non disputandum.
The views she expressed included not only that minorities are responsible for more violent crime than are whites...
Wouldn't this be a fun case to try, if there's some kind of administrative hearing?
lawyer: So would you say that statement by Defendant is false...?
Plaintiff:...uh....
lawyer: ...or are you saying that Federal judges should be enjoined against speaking the truth?
Plaintiff:...er...hey! I did nothing wrong! That's a racist question, and besides I'm taking the Fifth.
Whenever someone says they are part of the NAACP, just ask, "Is that the National Association of Colored Persons?" just to get a rise out of them. It will.
Every time you refer to their organization, it should be in the full name not the acronym. Just explain that you don't like acronyms as they're just such inexact and confusing labels.
This is how the game is played.
Pretty ugly, huh?
I'm not embarrassed for the NAACP, once a major force for progress in this country. I'm angry at them.
The author of the little article said that the right and proper thing to do is debate, argue the points from the judge's talk.
But the stock-in-trade of the left is force. Not persuasion, not reason, and certainly not freedom for another point of view.
Her mistake was leaving the state of Texas.
She's white!
Simply stating that "minorities" are responsible for more violent crime does not tell the whole story.
Normal, decent, middle class "minorities" are normal, decent, and middle class. They don't go around raping, killing, pillaging, and otherwise ensuring that our prisons are never lacking for business.
It is members of the underclass who do these things, and many of them happen to be "minorities."
You say you're embarrassed. That would signify shared guilt.
Maybe the race card is finally getting cancelled.
Last night Bill O'Reilly covered the mass violence perpetrated by blacks in public schools. His opening was a story run by ABC News and he took it and ran.
He stated several times that blacks and hispanics are much violent than whites. After that numbskull Alan Colmes claimed it was due to poverty, O'Reilly said they couldn't find one school that had behavior problems like those in the majority minority schools. I have a feeling he will be revisiting this in the future.
Wonderful that this might finally be getting an airing in the main stream media instead of swept under a rug.
She's white!
Could also read:
And, And, You're White!
Original, form As Good as it Gets:
And, And, You're Black!
It would appear that the concern is that cases are prejudged by the jurist based on her views regarding the propensity to violence of a race, rather than just the facts of the case in front of her.
"Everybody knows that (blacks are violent/ women are terrible drivers/ gays are perverts) so they MUST be guilty."
This doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern, professor, does it?
It would appear that the concern is that cases are prejudged by the jurist based on her views regarding the propensity to violence of a race, rather than just the facts of the case in front of her.
"Everybody knows that (blacks are violent/ women are terrible drivers/ gays are perverts) so they MUST be guilty."
This doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern, professor, does it?
Thus the ideology is used to explain and persuade on high levels in the academy, and smear and take down opposition on the street level. For all the talk of overcoming differences, why it almost seems tribal to attack those with differences in moral thinking, tradition, and belief, no?
You can almost feel the hate when looking at her picture. She's the enemy!
Maybe human nature, nature, and the limits of what we can know are not best handled by the ideology?
Maybe it's increasingly forming the base of large parts of our culture, highlighted by the current political party in power?
Nah, can't be.
I was talked out of Latin as a freshman by an advisor.
I argued at age 18 and lost to what I unwittingly thought was an authority or just a cute girl explaining why Italian was the best language I needed to learn, if I really didn't want to learn Spanish.
Then I watched Rushmore, roughly two years later, and shit laughter.
Laugher had shit me enough I figured I was due.
Michael Paul Catrillo writes: This doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern, professor, does it?
No matter how personally disconcerting the alleged words are to you, you need to be concerned about the odd standards of evidence here. No recording, no transcript. Yet there are full written sentences attributed to her which I presume someone will swear behind. If not, the whole thing could be whole cloth.
Did she say anything that was demonstrably untrue?
Certainly nothing in the quoted section is. There are some opinions, and some facts.
A lot of people want to outlaw inconvenient facts these days. One would think that truth would be a defense against a charge of racism. Boy, is that a naive view.
Even Obama was criticized for telling a black audience to get their act together and quit blaming other people.
This doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern, professor, does it?
I enjoy zapping unnecessary double negatives just to see what's left standing. May I?
This does seem like an reasonable concern, professor, doesn't it?
The ambiguity becomes clearer, but the facts in evidence are still murky.
Of course she is hideous looking.
What is she doing with that hair?
She will definitely be the next Pube Presidential Candidate now though.
Well funded far left librul lawyers are ruining this country.
I enjoy zapping unnecessary double negatives just to see what's left standing. May I?
You can't do that in your head?
Maybe the race card is finally getting cancelled.
We can wish but I fear for the foreseeable future (i.e. the rest of my life) race will always trump the truth.
People nowadays believe they have the right not to be made uncomfortable by hard facts and inconvenient truths.
You can't do that in your head?
Pet peeve. They're often used to obfuscate. Hardly anyone writes them naturally.
bpm4532, you left out advancement but then NAACP hasn't done that in decades. The organization stands for the retrogression of colored people. It does need an upgrade NARB, association for the retrogression of blacks -- setting race relations back decades!
I wasn't at the speech, but I am from Houston and I have known Judge Jones professionally and socially for 26 years. She is one of the smartest judges I have been before. She is the former chief of the 5th Circuit, and was on the short list of two when GHWB picked Souter (she was sent out the side door of the White House and put in a cab).
She is circumspect and judicious in all settings I have ever seen her.
Simply put, it is not possible that she said any of the horrible things attributed to her.
This story was pushed to me for use by my blog. The pusher insisted upon being off the record, so I will not state the pusher's name or what he/she said. But the people filing the affidavits came to the speech as opponents of the judge and their statements are vague paraphrasings that are spun to make the judge look bad. I can't credit that sort of attack without better information on what was actually said. Who knows? Maybe the judge said horrible things. But the attack isn't credible until we have much better information about what was actually said.
OH. MY. GOSH. A judge is actually familiar with FBI Crime Statistics.
Regardless, here's Another example of an innocent minority being hassled by the police for driving while black.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcrsrglxmeQ
The left loves to pretend that poverty causes crime.
This is patently false.
It is true that there is a correlation between crime and poverty, but as everyone knows, correlation alone does not prove causation.
Both crime and poverty result from pathological tendencies and behaviors. Someone whose pathological behaviors are limited to self-destructive actions will be poor. Someone whose pathological behaviors extend to others will also be a criminal.
Not everyone is competent. Not everyone is emotionally complete and intact. Some people are simply broken. They do things to sabotage themselves. Some do things to harm others as well. The result is poverty and crime.
Well, this judge is done. She violated the first commandment of PC:
Thou shalt not speak the truth.
Burn her.
"You can't do that in your head?"
Pretty snappy, phx.
Maybe the race card is finally getting cancelled.
Not yet, I'm afraid. Just watch how well it works still ...
Pat: "Simply put, it is not possible that she said any of the horrible things attributed to her."
LOL
When has that ever stopped the left?
Short answer: never.
Titus: "Of course she is hideous looking."
Of course she is Titus. She has a vagina. We take your meaning.
This is, of course, an example of "sophisticated" discourse from our visiting east coast raconteur.
LOL
If she used the word "propensity," that was a mistake. The other claims against her statements are just arguing against the data.
The "God" complaint is silly.
I am not sure what the problem is. Judge Jones gave a speech. People reported hearing racist statements in her speech. They pointed out the statements that were problematic. How can you debate the ideas without discussing the points the speaker was making? Judge Jones has an opportunity to clear up the matter. If she has a written copy of her speech, she can make it available. If there is a recorded copy of what she said, this can be made available. But how is it wrong to report you heard something? And if she did say these things, would Judge Jones have brought up these statements? I think not. So how, other than someone telling us she made these statements will we learn about them?
I was noticing one AP article linked this to appeals for one death penalty convicted murderer named Buck.
It seems the DEFENSE had a psychologist witness to testify that there was a low probability the man would commit another crime, so the DP was not warranted.
then the Prosecuter cross-examined and asked him if statisticts showed that men were more likely to commit crime then women, and if minorities were more likely than whites. The witness affirmed, and the prosecutor then referred to the prosecutions statment that it would be more likely to commit a crime again
This is the basis for the appeal, since it means the jury discriminated by hearing testimony from a defense expert witness.
I guess this is an example of how systemic racism can exist when nobody is doing anything intentionally racist. (the prosecutor is just doing his job, using testimony to get a high penalty)
Eric Holder said we have never had a frank discussion about race. Yet when a federal judge does just that, she is branded a racist.
There are too many taboo subjects because of political correctness. Only free discussions will bring us a solution for society's problems.
If this story gets some juice she will release the full text of her speech. It will show two things:
1. Nothing she actually said is untrue; and
2. That will make no difference to the complainants.
So what happens next? Will she be prossercuted?
Shoot the messenger. Then you don't have to acknowledge the message.
Wait, what "horrible things" did these douchebags allege she said? All I see is political spin on what is really just a little taste of old-fashioned no-bullshit "paleo-conservatism." Is that stuff now considered horrible?
God. Even modern conservatives jump up on the chairs when confronted by this little mouse now, it seems.
You know she has only fucked for procreation.
No recreational hog in that puss.
And there is probably a good chance she has a white robe in her closet and a big old burnt cross in her basement.
She wouldn't participate in oral, giving or receiving.
And I bet she wears nylons with flats.
The reason Grants Pass OR is in the news now is because of Grant Hills' retirement.
I can prove this via Moneyball and will given the money prior said proof.
Any damn time you want.
Somewhere in my past I was taught that TRUTH was a absolute defense against such accusations.
White girl bleed a lot.
I had to watch CBS news with my mother tonight. They proclaimed a 35% drop in dead Chicago negroes.
They spun it for police vigilance. The real answer is....no ammunition.
Smells like a leftwing smear job.
@Pat... Interesting.
El Pollo Raylan , it appears that you are correct that we have only heard the prosecutors case (so to speak), and the judge in question has not yet presented a defense. It is perhaps possible that the various witnesses to the speech are either wrong or dissembling for their own political ends. The judge should be allowed to defend herself. With a conviction rate of 93.5% in the circuit, she better be glad she isn't being charged with a criminal act.
That said, I believe the charges are serious enough to investigate. Having had some dealings with the breathtaking corruption of the fifth circuit (and the New Orleans bench in particular), having watched the local chapter of the Innocence Project pull a shocking number of innocent people out of our for-profit prison system (with Louisiana having a higher incarceration rate than nearly anywhere in the world), with people being sent to prison on the word of a coroner who was caught STEALING THE EYES OF THE DEAD, you must understand, I'm deeply, deeply cynical about the course of justice in our part of the world.
Regarding the double negatives; My great vice is to endeavor to be as pleasant as possible, with as reasonable a tone as can be managed. In such a brutal world, would you deprive me of my innocent little vice?
The news is pro-democrat spin. The "news" is barely even real anymore.
Why not just argue and debate about the ideas?
So unadulterated racism as a personal belief just never got a fair hearing, I guess.
Also, the idea that we give too much oversight to executing people and that religious instruction alone provides adequate judicial reasoning for allowing the death penalty... How could thinking people overlook such gold nuggets of intellectual virtue?
Never underestimate Althouse's willingness to argue for the rehabilitation of absolutely horrible ideas.
Actually, the word "ideas" is too generous. She argues for the rehabilitation of bad cognitive habits. Ideological addictions.
Appalling.
Simply put, this Jones character is but an abomination of judicial intellect. It's astounding that connies (even one as intentionally attention/spectacle-seeking as the hostess) wouldn't want to cut their losses on this one. Connies have gotten to the point ideologically rallying around the idea of someone being attacked, without even asking themselves what that idea is or what that person stands for. It's pure, unadulterated, knee-jerk defensiveness - and any thought as to why is verboten. That's all they got left these days.
C'mon, dude. Show us the racism.
You just don't understand. This judge said things, and it made me feel bad! Someone must pay for that! Because, the world runs on how I feel.
Poor people are going to commit the majority of the crimes of violence. So maybe we should stop gathering statistics on crime and race and start gathering them on income and crime. Which crimes are committed by which incomes? and also which crimes are committed by people on drugs? and which by people with mental illness?
Don't gather statistics on crime and race and then say "gotcha" when people mention the results. If it's wrong to mention the statistics on crime and race then it is wrong to gather them. I think the Census should drop all race related questions, I mean what is the point of gathering them?
"It would appear that the concern is that cases are prejudged by the jurist based on her views regarding the propensity to violence of a race, rather than just the facts of the case in front of her."
How about "post judged" based on years of hearing cases ? Prejudged means by someone who is just starting out to hear cases.
R&B seems to dislike politically incorrect facts--but we knew that. I'm more interested in his leap to judgement with only half the facts.
You just don't understand. This judge said things, and it made me feel bad! Someone must pay for that! Because, the world runs on how I feel.
You're not understanding the argument, are you?
Rhythmus facit salit
This judge said things, and it made me feel bad! Someone must pay for that! Because, the world runs on how I feel.
Good point, Jim! Republicans never rally around emotional causes!
Take John McCain's advocacy of Syrian intervention, for instance. Totally sober and rational realpolitick at its best! Kissinger would be proud.
And then, the whole issue of riling "Real Americans" up at the idea that there are too many immigrants among us. They come to that conclusion, and the resulting solution of building a thousand mile long Berlin Wall on the Mexican border, out of a very detached and objective analysis. Never appeals to fear of the foreigner! Republicans just don't do that.
And when I see commercials on right-wing media outlets for gold based on the idea of permanently impending American economic collapse, I think, "This is just not an emotional enough appeal".
I'm glad we both see things the same way, Jim.
They proclaimed a 35% drop in dead Chicago negroes.
Wait until it warms up; it has been unseasonably cool so far.
Michael K, the point is that it is of no consequence that every other member of the class of the defendant commits similar crimes. What matters is, DID THE DEFENDANT COMMIT THE CRIME. Or is the guilty party still out and about.
You know she hates fags which makes Chick's small cock hard.
He seems a little too eager to play Robespierre regarding Judge Jones.
He'd rather talk about John McCain
R&B seems to dislike politically incorrect facts--but we knew that. I'm more interested in his leap to judgement with only half the facts.
Well Raylan, since it seems that the esteemed Edith Jones is keeping mum, I'm sure you'll fill us in on all the spine-tingling morsels of objective and factual wisdom that are lurking around somewhere in a judge's negative fixation on assigning racial conclusions to crime stats and just leaving it at that. What complex social reasoning she must have appointed you to reveal in her unfortunately truncated yet undoubtedly wise words.
I expected the personal invective, Titus so lay it out.
He seems a little too eager to play Robespierre regarding Judge Jones.
He'd rather talk about John McCain
Hey, I'll talk about any one of these shallow numbskulls and their disastrous impulses.
Their present movement is the golden chain that unites nearly all present-day thoughtlessness and recklessness in politics into a vortex of cognitive emptiness and never-ending emotion.
It's a common, disastrous affliction and we aim to publicize the diagnosis as far and as wide as possible.
Pedantic lesson for Michael P. Castrillo:
I wrote: R&B seems to dislike politically incorrect facts--but we knew that.
What I really meant is better seen w/o the double negative: R&B seems to like politically correct facts--but we knew that.
Forgive me.
Yes, El Pollo Raylan , YES, but the whole POINT is that it partially obscures and therefore softens the point. Also why it's rendered as a question, instead of a bald statement.
What it lacks in logical and grammatical rigor, it more than makes up for by being PLEASANT and AGREEABLE.
On the INTERNET, no less.
Well, Pollo, you might want to ask if he cares first before reminding him of how you've got a real strong interest in waiting for the Good Judge to concoct a totally believable rationale for mixing in some racial/criminal angle into her potent potion of personal beliefs which should never, ever be questioned or thought through.
The complainant is identified as a defense lawyer, someone with a professional financial interest in discrediting any federal judge perceived by that sector of the bar as being skeptical of their clients' claims.
Such complaints are governed by a series of federal statutes, which in turn are implemented within the various federal judicial circuits pursuant to those circuits' local rules. As a lawyer for 33+ years, I've been a complainant myself exactly once.
But it's my professional opinion that I cannot tell you anything more than that about my own personal experience without violating 28 U.S.C. sec. 360, a section entitled "Disclosure of information" in the chapter on judicial complaints in Title 28, the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Code.
As I read that statute: Having myself been "[a] person in [such a] proceeding" — i.e., having myself been a complainant against a federal circuit judge — I may not disclose any "papers, documents, [or] records of proceedings related to investigations conducted under this chapter." The complaint quoted in the linked article IS exactly such a paper, document, and record of the proceeding: It's necessarily the beginning (and most often the end) of any further investigation or inquiry that's initiated by the filing of the complaint.
And under this section of the law, such documents and papers "shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed by any person in any [such complaint] proceeding ...."
That would include the complainant, wouldn't it?
Section 360 contains some exceptions — collectively, they basically give the reviewing panels (comprising other federal judges) an opportunity to make things public when and if, in their wisdom, they think an impeachment or a public shaming is appropriate. But note that they're only required to make public those particular written orders that "implement[s] any action under section 354(a)(1)(C)," which is the list of serious sanctions that the whole judicial council can impose going up to and including an impeachment recommendation to the House of Representatives. These complaints are not routinely made public to the best of my knowledge.
The blog post writer, Jordan Smith, doesn't directly reveal how or where he got the copy of the complaint from which he's quoting. Was it stolen? Leaked by the court staff?
Or was the complainant also the blog writer's source for the complaint?
Whether the leaker is himself a member of the bar might matter quite a bit in a bar disciplinary proceeding against such a leaker. I'm not sure that there's any other context in which the unlawful disclosure of such a confidential document would generate any criminal or civil sanction or penalty against a non-lawyer.
But that's something I certainly would never risk my own law license on, nor advise any other lawyer to do.
This interpretation of section 360 — i.e., that it binds the complainant and others involved — is one I recall reading in the written instructions from the particular circuit in which my complaint was filed. But that was some years ago, and I confess to having done no independent research tonight beyond re-reading the statute and glancing at this opinion, which declines to express an opinion on the subject while hinting at considerable displeasure toward a complainant-attorney who may have "gone public." Professor Althouse, or other readers with legal and legal ethics training or relevant experience, feel free to weigh in on this if you have a different interpretation of the provision I've linked.
Other than the part about exempting the mentally retarded from the death penalty there's nothing there that isn't true--with the elaboration that goofy claims to avoid execution are made by lawyers for all shades of convicted people facing execution--all their attorneys make utterly goofy claims hoping something will stick, and arguably if they didn't they would be failing to represent their client.
Assuming her statements were correctly repeated, her factual statements are correct, and that's what seems to compel the NKVD types to report the thoughtcrime of mentioning hate facts.
It is perhaps possible that the various witnesses to the speech....
When Speech is a casualty, I guess you need 'witnesses'...
Otherwise... maybe its an IRS request for "more information".
I am not worthy of talking to Ann Barnhardt in person unless really really sober i.e. no weed allowed.
I would flail.
Flounder.
Define awkwardness brashly (really I feel it should be "brasshly" is how I feel now).
Fruitful and multiply; or other.
It would appear that the concern is that cases are prejudged by the jurist based on her views regarding the propensity to violence of a race, rather than just the facts of the case in front of her
Bullshit. The concern is that somebody is speaking the truth. That can't be tolerated in our fascist dystopia.
waiting for the Good Judge to concoct a totally believable rationale for mixing in some racial/criminal angle into her potent potion of personal beliefs
Does a judge need some "rationale" other than an interest in crime and the truth for mentioning the patently obvious fact that blacks commit more crime than whites?
What exactly do you imagine her "personal beliefs" to be, you fascist turd?
Americans are fed up with niggers, those who divide, faction, fight over ideologies, do paybacks, overbear, separate, smirk, seek judicial preference, reject scrutiny, foam stupid when challenged ... that sort of posture/attitude. Niggers think they have the world by the tail and can whirl it around in high glee to smash heads on rocks to their hearts' content. They are efficient at what they do.
Shitmo - your presence on this blog is absolutely appalling.
David R. Graham - begone leftist moby.
The Left seems to have read "1984" and "Brave New World" not as cautionary tales but as how-to guides on constructing the ideal state.
There was a Star Trek episode on torture in which the torturer demands that Picard look at four lights, and say that there are actually five. Breaking people to your will entails compelling them to deny reality even - or especially - when that reality is clear and unambiguous.
Which brings us to the Left - "You WILL assent to our patently preposterous proposition that all people are interchangeable and that race is meaningless, and ALSO to our simultaneous and contradictory claim that whites are an evil which needs to be eradicated."
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
As I say, this was supposed to be a warning. But America's "intellectual elite" have decided that it actually sounds like a swell way to run a country.
I don't think any member of a Mexican drug gang would prefer to be in an American jail. Mexican jails have a barter parole system with sliding scales that make Mexican jail terms considerably briefer. Also, since Mexico has abolished capital punishment, perhaps the NAACP can lobby the cartels to outlaw decapitation or, at the very least, evisceration......Hard to believe that a sitting American judge could possibly believe that American jurisprudence is superior to that in Mexico. Could there be any reason other than racism for holding such an opinion?
Whether the judge's statements were appropriate or not depends on the context.
All the statistics seem to indicate that blacks and hispanics commit more violent crimes than whites. Since each person is a individual not a statistic, the judge has to evaluate each case separately. Did she say anything which indicates that she is unable to do that? Without context we can't know.
I believe mental incapacity has been a defense for a long time. The question the judge appears to raise is whether mentally retarded people fall under that category. Does the inability to do well on an IQ test mean that a person is mentally unable to know right from wrong? How much weight should we put on IQ tests? Where is the cut off. Statistically some races do better on IQ tests than other races? Does that mean that some races are more moral and are more capable to determine right from wrong than other races? Using IQ as a defense raises many interesting and highly nonPC issues.
Somewhat OT, but the subject is the Constitution, after all:
Big Sis wants to search laptops and phones based on "hunches".
Perhaps Madame La Professeur will have something to say about it.
Look, lefties. Here's the point. It is quite possible that judge Jones is a racist. Certainly there are a few of them out there, and racists can and do say things like blacks tend to be more criminal than whites, which is what these partisan affidavits allege. The issue is that this alone is not enough to prove that the judge is a racist, because (1) we don't know the full context of her statements, (2) what she allegedly said is true and plenty of non-racists say it, and (3) there is evidence that she is not racist; to wit, she is a public figure -- a judge -- and there appears to be no past evidence of racist behavior. (If she is a racist, it looks like she doesn't let her personal inclinations affect her professional role. Isn't that what a good judge should do?)
But you lefties will never acknowledge this, because you have two goals: (1) to destroy conservative public figures and (2) to redefine racism to make real discussion of race matters impossible.
By the way, Ann. You should drop the word "attempted" from the headline of this post.
The judge's character has, in fact, been assassinated.
madAsHell said...
I had to watch CBS news with my mother tonight. They proclaimed a 35% drop in dead Chicago negroes.
They spun it for police vigilance. The real answer is....no ammunition.
I had to laugh at this.
The bangers at the plant keep asking me if I have any "9mil" or any "40s" they can buy.
Reagan appointee, possible supreme court justice, conservative. About time she was alinskied.
The left knows the best defense is a good offense. Expect to see more distracting incidents and brush-fires pop up as their carefully crafted facade crumbles.
The NAACP degenerated into a club for poverty pimps many years ago.
A few of the people defending her indicate they believe the comments attributed to her would be offensive, but their defense is that she didn't make those comments. The majority don't dispute that she made those comments, and their defense is that the comments were factually true and there's nothing wrong with her making them in a speech. I wouldn't dispute that blacks and hispanics commit more crime, I assume it's statistically true. Probably the media doesn't dwell on it to avoid embarrassing or offending the blacks and hispanics who are not criminal. In practice the people who make these kinds of comments are usually racist, i.e. they dislike blacks and hispanics generally and have little, if anything positive to say about them.
John Doe said:
"In practice the people who make these kinds of comments are usually racist, i.e. they dislike blacks and hispanics generally and have little, if anything positive to say about them"
Since I don't know you or your associates, I can't dispute your experience that people you talk to are racists. My experience is different.
Have you considered the fact that people you talk to, who make those comments, don't like black people because they have experienced some of their crime themselves?
The important thing to remember is that all people of any race have the right to be treated as individuals, not statistics. This tendency to view people as members of a statistical group rather than individuals is a common failing of the left.
Shorter complaint, edited for coherence:
FREE SPEECH POINTING OUT THE OBVIOUS IS RAAAAACIST! BECAUSE SHUT UP!
I don't like racists of any color that blame whitey for their self inflicted problems.
The speech that is the subject of the complaint was given on February 20, 2013. If the people bringing the complaint haven’t produced an unedited recording and verified transcript in the nearly four months she gave her talk, I think the smart money is that that they’re deliberately distorting what she said as part of an orchestrated smear campaign. Put up or shut the f*** up.
Did they succeed in assassinating Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Prosser? His character. Not the clump of cells.
You know, if we eeeeeeevile conservatives were eeeeeeeeevile in the manner the left projects on us, we would be all in favor of black on black violence, brown on black violence, Planned Parenthood in da hood, and meth fueled gay orgies leading to spikes in AIDS.
Talk about self-correcting problems.
But we're not. So we call attention to these things and good decent progressives refuse to look at, much less deal with them.
Who has the evil agenda here?
Is "bangers" racist?
Rusty...only if you don't throw in a couple of token white ones when you make the movie.
I'm supposed to believe her enemies showed up and didn't record the speech? I'm not as stupid as Ritmo so that doesn't really fly.
Race is not the best predictor of being incarcerated for crime or being on welfare.
Not growing up with a father is.
It just so happens that the black community has abandoned the two parent family. And they, and the rest of us, are reaping the 'rewards."
But race is not the best predictor.
Trey
There was a Star Trek episode on torture in which the torturer demands that Picard look at four lights, and say that there are actually five.
The fact that there are only 4 lights will prejudiced his opinion that there were only 4 lights, when the defendant may hope the jurist sees 5 lights.
TMink said...
"Race is not the best predictor of being incarcerated for crime or being on welfare.
Not growing up with a father is.
It just so happens that the black community has abandoned the two parent family. And they, and the rest of us, are reaping the 'rewards."
But race is not the best predictor."
You might be right, but you have not offered any evidence to support your claim. Your point that before we compare cohorts they need to be matched as closely as possible is correct. So to establish your point you need to answer the following questions.
Are whites who are raised without a father just as prone to crime as blacks raised without a father? Are whites who are raised with a mother and a father just as prone to crime as blacks who are raised in an intact family?
Don't you find it funny that instead of discuss what she said all conservatives are trying to water it down. Any comment that can even be semi-twisted to sound racist shouldn't be said period. It undermines equal justice for all.
Don't you people understand that there should be no racist language at all! Edith has a wealth of knowledge and is highly intelligent. She's gotten too comfortable in her position and feels she can impose her views as those of the legal system. That is wrong.
"Simply stating that 'minorities' are responsible for more violent crime does not tell the whole story."
See, now that's debate. Isn't is so much more enlightening than simply jumping up and down and hurling scat at someone with whom you disagree?
Krystal said:
"Don't you people understand that there should be no racist language at all! Edith has a wealth of knowledge and is highly intelligent. She's gotten too comfortable in her position and feels she can impose her views as those of the legal system. That is wrong."
Perhaps you will go to the original article and point out the "racist language" for us dummies?
"The judge's character has, in fact, been assassinated."
I take your point, but the wording makes what I think is a false statement. Her reputation has been assassinated, for some at least, but not her character. Her character is something beyond external affect. Like Cyrano's Panache (White Plume).
"David R. Graham - begone leftist moby."
That's cool, I'll wear it as an ornament. Years ago I self-reported to the so-called "Suspicious List" maintained by the black lie occupying the White House. And I'm a long-time registered Republican who voted for Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972. To be deemed a leftist moby is an honor. I cannot recall voting for a Democratic Party presidential candidate, though I may have voted for Johnson in 1964. Memory is vague. Not a few today are so cynical they cannot discover that someone is sincere. Our hostess can tell me to begone because this is her property. You do not occupy that position.
There's something about that Krystal I just like.
Leftists don't debate. They assassinate character. To debate would provide the other side legitimacy, which they don't deserve on account that they're the other side, which is necessarily hatred, bigotry, homophobia, sexism, etc., all rolled into one, merely for being on the other side.
Disagreement makes you insane or evil or both. Disagreement equals hate. The typical leftist's brain would melt if forced to listen to an opposing argument and try to make a logical opposing argument. Instead, it's apoplexy. It's what they do. That's why they can't be called liberals. Liberalism implies a support of liberty. Leftists seek total state control. There is no liberty to the leftists. You're either a slave on the plantation or you're a Nazi.
"Don't you find it funny that instead of discuss what she said all conservatives are trying to water it down. Any comment that can even be semi-twisted to sound racist shouldn't be said period. It undermines equal justice for all."
No, it helps uphold equal justice for all. Leftist shibboleths that try to tip the scales of justice like "the justice system is racist, look at all the young black men in prison!" and "The death penalty is racist!" use lies and silence as their oxygen and only truth can confront them.
The Obama administration tried this tactic when they made a great hue and cry about blacks being disciplined more in school, making it seem like it was a racist conspiracy by school administrators. But the fact is that some black kids just misbehave more often, just some of them become more prone to criminality as they age.
Lies have to be confronted.
From Lethal Weapon 2:
Murtaugh: I want to emigrate to South Africa.
SA Consulate Guy: But, you're Black!
“In many ways it’s even more troubling than [Bush era] warrantless wiretapping, in part because the program is purely domestic,” says Alex Abdo, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project.”But this is also an indiscriminate dragnet. Say what you will about warrantless wiretapping, at least it was targeted at agents of Al Qaeda. This includes every customer of Verizon Business Services.”
Read the article here.
Maybe Obama was snooping on Americans illegally (NSA is not allowed to snoop on citizens) because ...oops! That's right, the war on terror is over, right, Inga? Benghazi wasn't an act of terror, right? So just why would great leader be snooping on citizens, since he can't be fighting enemies in a war on terror that he says is over?
leslyn said...
If she can't stand the heat, she shouldn't put herself in the fire.
What the hell are you talking about?
It's Althouse who's denouncing the bullshit accusations, not the jurist. And even if it were Judge Jones complaining, why do public figures not have the right--indeed, the duty--to push back against slander?
Illuninati, you are of course correct, I just stated the outcome of the research.
Here are links to some of the research:
http://www.fatherhood.org/media/consequences-of-father-absence-statistics
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm
http://fira.ca/cms/documents/29/Effects_of_Father_Involvement.pdf
http://www.ncoff.gse.upenn.edu/content/father-presence-matters-review-literature
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/206316.pdf
http://www.ecdip.org/docs/pdf/IF%20Father%20Res%20Summary%20(KD).pdf
Most of the links take you to summary articles, but many of the summary articles have excellent bibliographies. The majority of the studies are regression analyses and for the vast majority of societal ills the absence of a father in the home turns out to be the best predictor.
Great question, I hope you enjoy the answers! For your own edification, "father absence research" searches lead to a lot of the primary source articles.
Trey
"Any comment that can even be semi-twisted to sound racist shouldn't be said period. It undermines equal justice for all.
Don't you people understand that there should be no racist language at all!"
Make up your mind. Is it racist language that is bad, or is it any language that can be twisted to be racist that is bad?
Because the "don't you people understand" people you're speaking to understand that what this means is "shut up."
There is NO language that can't be twisted to be racist. Because anything that can't be twisted racist, is "code" or "dog whistles" and the charge becomes that it's *secretly* racist because everyone knows what "those people" really think.
We're on year 5 now of any opposition to Obama's policies being "racist" because, since there is no reason at all to oppose his policies there is only racism left. Because before 2009 no Republican or conservative or libertarian EVER opposed Democrat policies.
Charges of racism have become a joke.
Before 2009, yes, all Good People made honest efforts to avoid using any language or saying anything that could be semi-twisted into something that *sounded* racist.
After 2009 Good People discovered that they could say nothing at all, merely join a group focused on reigning in government excess, and they'd be branded with a racist brush. If they opposed the President it was now because he "didn't look like the men on the money" and not because they had political differences.
Only an idiot would still twist themselves in knots to avoid something that is unavoidable.
This is a reality that the left built, that Obama built. Not that anyone expects them to own it.
[L]ooking at your avatar, I would swear you have a goal to destroy someone, or several someones. -- leslyn
Just fishy someones.
If the Republicans nominate Christy in 2016, I'm definately not giving them a donation and I'll probably not vote for president for the first time in my life.
Since 2008 the choice has been only "Vote for the Republican, he sucks slightly less than Obama". In all honestly, that's been the choice since 1992.
But if that's the choice, put a fork in America. We're done.
Post a Comment