Someone please explain to me again why bloggers should adopt the code of ethics followed by journalists?
Judge Wendell L. Griffen in Arkansas thinks that the war in Iraq is a mistake, and he is not bashful about saying so. Of course, he does so off the bench. But even so, his comments have him up to his ears in hot water. The comments breed lack of confidence in the impartiality of the bench, regulators say. He may face suspension by the state's Judicial Discipline and Disability Committee.
Well, what is he supposed to talk about when he appears before voters?
The convention among judges seeking election by voters or appointment by lawmakers is not to discuss how they would vote on an issue that may appear before them. This dumbing-down of the debate leaves little to discuss. National policy issues seem like a promising topic.
The Supreme Court has held the door ajar for judges to speak out when facing election. "If the state has a problem with judicial impartiality, it is largely one the state brought upon itself by continuing the practice of popularly electing judges," noted Sandra Day O'Connor in her concurrence in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. Under White, judicial candidates in popular elections retain the right to speak out on disputed legal and political questions.
Even so, I concede that Judge Griffen's comments might give pause to a staucn Republican appearing before the judge. Will the jurist use his discretion to abuse a person on the other side of a partisan line? There is always the danger of that appearing so.
In striking the balance between speech and an independent judiciary, the states would be wise simply to cease the popular election of judges. I realize that muzzles judges, and that is to be regreted. But it is a far worse thing to have judges pandering to the latest surge in public opinion. Lawmakers come and go with changes in passion; the judiciary, classical republicanism tells us, embodies something more endearing.
Wow. (Via KipEsquire)
This just in from the customer service department. Prettier Than Napolean has managed to create a version of Crime & Federalism that deletes my posts and features only Mike's. I'm not sure who this blogger is, but I don't really mind being banished by someone who posts a picture of herself looking as though she's just recovered from a tough night at an opium den. But Napoleon Was A Man
Here's the post and instructions on how to banish me from your life. Enjoy. Banishment is what listeners who found Imus offensive could have done.
Posted by Amber at 6:37 PM
Expect a circus in Stamford this week, where, starting Tuesday, Michael Skakel's dream of a new trial hits open court. The claim? Skakel didn't kill Martha Moxley, some other dudes did it. The non-jury proceeding is expected to last as long as two weeks, and will feature even more glitz and glitter than the first trial. Lights, camera, action!
The new trial petition comes down to this: Is there newly discovered material evidence that could not have been discovered in the exercise of due diligence exonerating Skakel? If so, Skakel gets a new trial.
Skakel was convicted in 2002 of beating Martha Moxley to death with a golf club in 1975 in their wealthy Greenwich neighborhood when they were 15. Skakel is a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, adding sizzle, even glamor, to the case. What's more, race will now also become an issue.
The defense contends Gitano "Tony" Bryant, a relative of Los Angeles Lakers superstar Kobe Bryant, implicated two of his friends in Moxley's killing. According to Skakel's lawyers, this claim did not surface until after the 2002 jury verdict.
Bryant has claimed he was in Greenwich with two friends from New York the night Moxley was killed. Bryant contends one friend said he "wanted to go caveman on her." Later that evening, the two reportedly told Bryant: "We did what we had to do" and "We got her caveman style." One of the so-called killers is white; the other is black. A little salt and pepper for the show.
This is evidence of third-party culpability, and it pure gold for defense of a criminal case. Defense counsel is not permitted to throw random darts at the board, it must show some evidence that directly connects a third party to the crime. It is not enough to show that someone else merely had motive or opportunity to kill. But can the defense show a direct connection?
The two men implicated by Bryant have refused to comment on the case, invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege. Their statements to Bryant are most likely inadmissible. They weren't co-conpsirators of Bryant's in the murder. Since a hearing for a new trial is a civil proceeding, the trial court may draw adverse inferences from the evocation of the Fifth Amendment by the two men. Whether that rebounds to Skakel's benefit is a close question.
The trial court may never reach these issues, however. Fatal to the claim is evidence that Skakel's trial lawyer, Michael Sherman, knew of the Bryant claim as early as 2000, but chose to ignore it. Sherman has already been pilloried for his handling of the case by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a piece in the Atlantic. Kennedy, too, is expected to testify at the new trial hearing.
Ironically, Sherman will be a prosecution witness in the new trial hearing. If he admits knowing of Bryant's claim, but chosing to downplay it for strategic reasons, the new trial petition goes down the tubes. In that case, Skakel's last hope is a habeas corpus petition contending ineffective assistance of counsel against Sherman. The smart money says attacking Sherman is Skakel's best bet.
In the end, Skakel's defense must show that the new evidence would also have changed the verdict. A tough, tough challenge. The case against Skakel was not air tight, but a retrial might yield another guilty verdict.
How, for example, does the defense contend with what may be the most unusual alibi testimony ever offered in a criminal case? Skakel didn't club the girl to death. No, why, by golly, he could not have. At the moment of her death he was sitting in a tree masturbating. Yeah, sure.
Perhaps the best thing going for Skakel in this new trial petition is his new lawyer, Hope Seeley. She is well-regarded by all in Connecticut, a serious student of the law, and a talented courtroom tactician -- all attributes foreign to high-flying, hard-crashing trial lawyer Mickey Sherman.
Stay tuned for the prime-time hearing of the month.
I don't have much of substance to add to the Imus debacle, but one thought did come to mind: When you really think about it, Imus pimped his voice for cash. He made a lot of money because he said things that attracted listeners - and thus advertisers. When he slipped up and said something stupid, he lost advertisers and thus was fired. What's the big deal?
His voice was always about one thing - cash. So long as he brought cash in, he kept his job. In a sense, he's no different from any of us working stiffs. We all live and die (economically, at least) based on what we say. Indeed, I got into a fair amount of trouble for something flip I posted on this blog.
Jim Nugent, a Connecticut lawyer and all-around slippery and manipulative fellow, forwarded a post of mine to someone I was doing some work for. That person was displeased and we went our separate ways (though we've since reconciled). [If you're curious, I called Gerry Spence a limousine liberal.]
While I think Nugent is petty and loathsome for messing with the career of someone almost 20-years his junior, and while I eagerly await the day I can return the favor, I don't view myself as any sort of victim. What we say has consequences. Opening our mouths can cost us money. It can cost us friends. Our freedom to speak should not infringe upon their freedom to hate us for what we say.
Imus is still free to speak. He can start a blog. I would even welcome him to blog here. He just can't demand the same fees he once did. But there is no ball-gag in his mouth. Likewise, I blog today with as much fervor as before. If something I say costs me money , I don't care. My soul is not for sale.
Maybe Imus needs to look at his own soul. What else has he wanted to say? I imagine Imus is wealthy enough that he no longer needs to work for the money. What's holding him back from speaking?
The answer, of course, is nothing. Which brings me back to my point: Imus is no victim of censorship. And perhaps, in being fired, Imus will set himself free.
Legal Talk interview on the Imus firing. Listen up. You can hear Norm Pattis, whom some of you seem to think is a crypto-racist
Forget all that lawyer talk about what the First Amendment really means.
Free speech means you can be an asshole, bigot or coward. Look around. Is there any shortage of these types on network news or talk shows?
If lawyers knew so much about the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment or Any
Amendment, we might actually have free speech. Warrants or probable cause would be needed before the corporate government and its minions - aka the fascists among us -- could squelch free expression or invade our privacy.
The Pretend News Networks and their corporate advertising masters struck a blow for thought control when they fired Don Imus. Who's next? Probably someone who is not a gazillionaire like Imus.
Is Don Imus a jerk? Well, yeah. Does he spew racist venom under the cover of humor? Seems to me he does. It is wearisome and offensive. So what.
The proper antidote would have been to challenge Imus to have tough and witty black guests who would be in his face. I'm not talking about Jessie "Hymietown Spit In White People's Salad" Jackson, whom I actually voted for in a Connecticut presidential primary some years ago. Nor am I talking about Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, whom I seriously considered voting for the last time around.
Like Imus, Jackson and Sharpton are mixed bags. They have some virtue and a lot of bullshit and larceny in their hearts. They are what they are and whatever low level of integrity they might have, it probably adds up to more than the combined amount of all the network bosses.
The curative for darkness of the heart or mind is sunlight. We need more free expression, not less. Imus might have responded to such a challenge. Maybe he is capable of some transformation, as we all are. We'll probably find out when he goes on satellite radio or some other venue.
I lost respect for Imus over the years not because of his insults, but because of - underneath it all - his sucking up to fellow jerks like Phony Joe Lieberman. Imus became the wise ass punk who kissed big white butt. He lost his edge and became a dinosaur.
Many years ago, before WFAN existed, I called in to the I-Man and actually got through on station whatever it was. I asked him, "Are you white? Are you naked?" I recall him reaching out to housewives and asking these probing questions of the day. The I-Man was quick, slapping me with a sarcastic line and cutting me off. Time to get quicker, I thought.
I have not watched or listened to Imus much recently. Still, I loved the way he beat on the Irish and the church. Where have you gone, Cardinal O'Connor and the lottery numbers? Maybe Billy Sol Hargus has been reincarnated into Rush Limbaugh …
Don Imus was fired this afternoon. His offense? Honesty. Call it a lynching in the name of political sensitivity.
The record is by now clear. Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as a bunch of "nappy headed hos," a remark that branded him as a racist in the eyes of millions. Folks on both sides of the color line pounced on Imus, calling for his resignation. A mere apology was not enough. He had to be strung up and killed, an example made of his aging white flesh.
CBS's decision to fire him is a sign of moral cowardice. And all the convivial back slapping among the politically correct at water-coolers from coast to coast is but chatter signifying nothing.
Imus is raw and uncensored. He'd never cut it at National Public Radio, where the goal seems to be to make everyone sound alike. When I refer to his offense as honesty, I am not, obviously, referring to the content of his remark about members of the basketball team. All are good athletes; some may even be good students. His racial insensitivity is what is honest. He has issues on the topic of race. No surprise there; so does our society.
So Imus has been lynched in the name of sensitivity. He'll probably re-emerge on Sirius radio, where political correctness is not required. I'll listen.
But what I won't listen to is the supercillious jive that speaks of Imus' firing as good for race relations or good for anything else I value. Race relations didn't improve because of his firing. I suspect that plenty of black folk are happy to see this cracker fall because he is a cracker, and many whites will fume that -- dare I even utter this unlicensed as I am to use term by mere accident of birth? -- niggers like Al Sharpton are movin' on up the food chain of influence. These harsh words are real; why do we flinch when we use them? Do we expect racial tensions to disappear by banishing the words that reflect them?
What Imus teaches is that we cannot talk about the things that divide us. Too much truth, too much honesty is dangerous. It is better to engage in symbollic chatter. Let Oprah and Al Roker have prime time slots and let them speak politely about things. But don't let them provoke. Keep it all clean, mild, and compressed toward a center that does not hold. Avoid real issues in the name of getting along while the lights are on.
Race matters. A lot. There is disparity in drug sentencing for crimes involving people of color. Housing opportunities are not equal. Educational opportunities aren't equal. Gangs tear urban areas apart. Real issues tear away at our society's health. But rather than focus on these, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion of race, we lynch Imus.
It is just plain dumb. And it dumbs down public discourse by declaring that some sentiments and attitudes are off limits. Perhaps that is why so little changes over time in our society. Truth is too provocative. Ask Don Imus.
I am sure the rumors can't be true. Mike Nifong is not leaving public service. No, I don't believe for a moment the talk. Nifong is not leaving to become personal attorney to a public figure. Why would Al Sharpton hire Nifong, anyway?
The convergence of the Duke lacrosse hoax and the immolation of Don Imus give us a unique chance to talk honestly about race and racism.
Truth number one. We still can't talk honestly about race. One reason is residual white guilt. A corollary is smug black complacency. You see there is entire culture of entitlement out there. It supports the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton: Men's whose only apparent talent is anger. Set my people free, they say. But what they mean is something far less. Our suffering makes us morally unique, they suggest. As a result, we're not fully responsible.
Thus this week we see Sharpton skewer Imus for the now infamous comment about "nappy headed hos." Yet Sharpton has played the race card in incendiary ways for decades. He stirred the pot in the Tawana Brawley farce. And he was a cheerleader of hate in the Duke lacrosse farce. Why doesn't anyone call for Sharpton's resignation? But I forget, he's a victim of racial hatred, and therefore to be forgiven for being little more than a moral caricature. Ditto Jackson.
Why can't a white man call a black man a fool on the topic of race? Why is honky suspect when he ups the ante in the race game and calls a spade a spade? Al Sharpton sets race relations back decades. He can't outgrow the pimp walk he learned decades ago. He still thinks his race is the most important thing about him. Thus, Sharpton the racist warps all he touches.
Truth number two. White men like Nifong are the moral equivalent of Sharpton. Toss color on the palette of human affairs and the crypto-white racist is paralyzed. Did white boys rape a black girl? Perhaps, and a prosecutor is obliged to gather evidence and evaluate the case when the accusation is made. But when the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the rape story is a farce, why not drop the case? Why not? Because race makes a coward of men like Nifong, men who somehow can't recognize that the color line is only one among the many vectors that shape our lives.
Race matters. Poverty and color often go hand in hand. The so-called war on drugs decimates communities of color. Equal opportunity remains a goal, not a reality. These are real issues calling for serious solutions.
What do we get instead of debate? We get professional blacks calling for Imus's skin. We get white men afraid of the color of their own shadow prosecuting lies. We get cheap symbolism of netowrks distancing themselves from the mere expression of a symptom of racial disharmony.
We get the illusion of doing something. But nothing really changes. Fire Imus, go ahead. But tomorrow a young black kid in some court near you will still get sentenced to decades for possession a few grams of crack cocaine. Test scores among children in urban schools will still be poor.
But, oh, how good we will feel for a day or so in the wake of this symbollic execution.
Race matters, but Don Imus does not. Race matters, but not as a public relations tool for the likes of Al Sharpton. Race matters. Ask the Duke lacrosse team.
Nifong working for Sharpton? Why not? He's been dancing like a puppet on Sharpton's string for the past year anyhow.