Judge sends racially charged email about president
 

Full story here

A Chief US District Judge sent, from his professional email, a rather terrible and offensive joke: "A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?'" the email joke reads. "His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!'" The joke itself is bad enough but then he defends himself by saying that it was just supposed to go to a couple of his buddies (I guess he didn't know that people like to forward shit) and that, while he admits the joke is racists, he isn't racist, just anti-Obama.

Eh. That could happen to anybody.

Everyone shares the occasional racist joke with their friends, but no one writes this before saying the joke:

"Normally I don't send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine."



How touching, a joke that says Barack's momma is so slutty she would even have sex with a dog and *gasp* with a black man!

I didn't read the e-mail, but I don't think that changes much... But my working environment probably looks worse then a clan meeting from the outside.

As an example, I made a bunch of posters about the guys I was with in Afghanistan and left them as the desktop wallpapers.

So that makes me homophobic,

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...sh/provost.jpg

misogynist,

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...amesh/pope.jpg

And racist, because this long running "yo momma" joke involves black men.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...sh/biasmom.jpg

Dude there is a big difference between a bunch of army guys and a Judge.

What's that?

An essential function of a judges job is to make unbiased decisions, even a hint of racial prejudice (or any other prejudice for that matter) casts doubt on the validity of their verdicts.

That's an essential part of my job, too. Supervisors literally hold their subordinates future in their hands, from career progression to judicial and non-judicial punishment. I mean, a court martial is just a military court, but it's members have the same power as a judge. I don't see the difference.

The more I hear about the army though, they're not a model example of impartiality and justice.

Nor am I under the impression that the higher ups give a fuck about those below.

Which is why there is a stricter code of conduct for officers, although I know that applies more to commissioned officers than NCOs but it still does apply to a degree.

That kind of depends on the type of court martial. Yes, in a summery court martial one officer essentially acts like a judge but only on relatively minor charges in other court martials which handle more severe cases there are more people, including a military judge (unless the accused requests to be only tried by the military judge) so there is still a judge involved in special or general court martial.

Doctrine actually stresses impartiality. The short end of it is if you have to send soldiers into harm's way, you have to do it without bias. You can't think "Well, this soldier can get the job done best, but I don't want him to get hurt." The main conflict with that is that leaders work with their subordinates extensively, where as a judge does not. Typically, the way around that is immediate superiors only make recommendations to a higher authority who ultimately make the decisions.

And it's not a good thing for higher ups to give a fuck about the people beneath them because it will effect their decisions. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but as with every system, to include the justice system, nothing's perfect.

It actually applies to all military personnel. The only difference between an NCO and lower enlisted is the level of authority that must make the decision.


And those officers are are drawn from where? Similarly, like I just mentioned, it just depends on the rank of the soldier in question. Non-judicial punishment can come from practically anyone. You may notice that the authority is the soldiers immediate company commander, but the initiation of that punishment or whatever comes from somebody like me, and an accusation of any kind of ism is taken just as seriously.

I think I see why we aren't seeing eye to eye about there being a difference between a bunch of army guys and a judge so let me rephrase and elaborate a little. Any judge should be held to a high standard of conduct, this is also true of service members but this is not just any judge and his exact position is important, I wouldn't react as strongly if he were a traffic judge, I would still take issue with him sending something like that from his work email and would still think that he is an idiot but that is it. A chief US district judge would be like at least a major general and a lot more is expected of a Major General than say a corporal, not because they can't get away with it in that position but that they were given that position because they were trusted to not do that kind of crap.

Okay I wrote that before your post and now after reading your posts I'm confused. What exactly is the point that you're trying to get across?

You're saying that the judge is held to a different standard and I'm saying that the different standard is wrong.

I'm going to agree with Versus on this. I mean, the joke is wrong, but even a judge is human and is entitled to dumbassery.

I change my vote for Lamisil. He just knows how to make a point, sorry Versus.

Way to read the ad, loser. The bot who posted it is called Bykovat.

You just jealous.

I want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Fuck yeah.

PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME

^ this happens in every organization all over the world. There are douches in every organization, in every line of work and at every level.

This judge, is a douche, it's obvious because someone thought he was one, so they released the email.

SOL - surely you can't expect everyone in a position of influence to hold a high code of conduct? Because there won't be anyone in power. Plus the higher up they go, they usually just get better at hiding their crap, or better at passing the buck and blaming the subordinates.

The difference between yours and his is the fact that yours were made for and about people you know and are presumably friends with. The fact that the comedy comes from bigotry is seconday to the fact that you presumably expect them to know that you're not a bigot. Forwarding a racist emil with an introduction like that one, on the other hand, isn't an act of intimacy and camaraderie in the same way that pushing boundaries with your buddies is. It just suggests that you think that shit's not only okay, but funny (or even worse, "touching"). For me, it's the difference between one of my friends calling me Ginger, and some dickhead kid screaming it at me from a car. The difference in intent is pretty obvious.

I guess. But I also don't think that the forwarded e-mail was intended to offend because he sent it to his friends, not people he thought it would upset.

I don't expect them to but I think they should, and yeah it disgusts me when I see or read about someone in power doing something so disrespectful and degrading to another person, let alone a whole category of people, but I guess that is just the idealist in me. Every person in a position of power who I have had the chance to interact with has fallen into one of two categories: people who are just as classy as they publicly portray or douchenozzles who don't give a crap about anybody but themselves and who almost always abuse their power. For me it isn't just that this guy forwarded a joke that was incredibly racially insensitive but the fact that he did this from his professional email and that he has not apologized for it, he legitimately seems to think it was okay to forward something that he realizes is racist because he only intended the joke to be anti-Obama.

There's nothing wrong with wanting somebody who represents fairness to be just that. I just don't think sending a dumb joke really pins him like that. His ability as a judge should be determined exclusively from his work practice, not because he didn't pay a parking meter or return a movie rental. If he were to steal or be convicted of fraud or abusing his power, he should be slammed... but it annoys me when politicians or celebrities cheat on their spouse or do something that the rest of us do in our private lives, it's suddenly different. I mean, we all dick around at work. Between tumblr and facebook, he decided to forward a crass joke to people in confidence. What's to apologize for? I wouldn't, either. I'd say "You know what? I'm sorry that you don't think it's funny and it offended you, but I didn't send you that e-mail, so you can't fault me for offending you. The only reason my private life is public is because someone wants to discredit me."