It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


judge in hot water over book

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 07:34 PM
a judge from my fine city of st. louis has been taking some heat over a book he wrote here's an article about it

now, some people (ie, the judge) believe people are crying foul because he's voicing non-liberal opinions on the bench

i think the issue is that he is
1: making money off of his position on the bench
2: he's essentially recusing himself from cases on anything written in the book

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 08:18 PM
Dierker must have known he was essentially submitting a very very long letter of resignation when he wrote the book, particularly with the title, "The Tyranny of Tolerance" and use of such virtiolic language as "femifascists".

If I had to guess, he's realized that his ideology will never prevail in the courts and decided that he'd rather make a million dollars feeding the loaded language of propaganda to the far right like O'Reilly and Limbaugh rather than continue making an honest effort to contribute to our society responsibly. It's the publicity stunt of a lifetime and if he doesn't end up with a radio show he'll at least make the rounds on other people's shows and make good money before he becomes yesterday's news.

Really though, femifascists? The right is throwing fascism around way too much these days. Anyone who expects to be treated with dignity and have their civil rights protected is a fascist, and if anyone challenges it there will always be a few bad eggs you can point to as a thin excuse for painting them all with the same brush.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 06:13 PM
i'm happy that nobody is stepping up to defend this deplorable act

judges on the bench should never make money on their position

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 06:24 PM
For what its worth, I would like to hope that the judge is trying to get canned and will resign if he isn't.

I don't think he would put himself in the untennable position of staying on the bench after this, because he knows he'd be overturned every time he failed to recuse himself from any case he had written about.

As long I'm guessing right about that, I see it as a shameless publicity stunt, but no big deal in terms of his duty on the bench- he has the right to resign, which seems to be what he's doing, in a rather provokative way.

posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 10:23 PM
Dierker is a nut job who would feel at home in Iran. No one who holds those kind of views should be allowed near any kind of public of office. If abortion is once again outlawed in the US the country will face a wave of people going after the rest of womens rights under the banner of stopping "femifascists."

[edit on 27-12-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 08:59 PM
i'm surprised by the lack of outrage here

with all the talk i hear about "activist judges" from the right, shouldn't they lead by example here?

why hasn't the right tarred and feathered this guy for being such an activist judge?

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 03:48 AM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
with all the talk i hear about "activist judges" from the right, shouldn't they lead by example here?
why hasn't the right tarred and feathered this guy for being such an activist judge?

Well you shouldn't be surprised much of the American right has proven itself to be paranoid and bunch of nut cases who want to use the US education system to brainwash kids into following there political ideology. By corrupting the education system they hope to convince people that a non existent higher power created the earth.

These people are as dangerous as Islamic extremists.

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:58 PM
come on people, there is plenty to discuss here
this is a hot issue
a judge exploiting his position as a judge
voicing opinions that will cause him to recuse himself in many cases

there is so much cannon fodder

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 01:11 PM
Well I wonder if he is married and have children.

Because if he is not, them I will take a guess as why he wrote that book showing his dislike for woman.

Well mister judge now you will have to take whatever you deserve for expressing your freedom of speech.

He just committed social suicided.

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 03:52 PM
Has anybody on here actually read his book?

[edit on 1/1/2007 by Classified Info]

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 06:08 PM
Here is an opinion from the right.

I will not defend him. And I hope, if the book is as nasty as portrayed in the article, he resigns.

I would certainly hope to know more about the book though.
He has a right to his opinion, if it's not in conflict.

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 11:54 AM
I haven't read the book, but I don't see why a judge shouldn't be able to express his opinions. After all, liberal judges certainly don't hide their convictions, but neither do they recuse themselves from cases in which their opinion has already been made known.

Is he too far right? Maybe. But what many fail to realize is that the judicial branch is heavily skewed to the left, and therefore it takes far-righters like this guy to bring a balance to the courts.

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by southern_cross3
I haven't read the book, but I don't see why a judge shouldn't be able to express his opinions. After all, liberal judges certainly don't hide their convictions, but neither do they recuse themselves from cases in which their opinion has already been made known.

Far-righters won't balance out any percieved liberal bias. All they will do is suspend stare decisis unless they are overturned.

Extreme liberals and conservatives frequently are overturned by the way. Conservatives pitch a fit when the 9th Circuit gets it wrong, but then the 9th Circuit goes on to get turned on its head as often as not.

Also, I am not aware of any sitting liberal judges making their views explicitly known, except if you infer that from their rulings. I would be interested in seeing examples.

Last but certainly not least, what the judge done has compromised his ability to do his job.

Judges are supposed to apply the law without passing judgement on the effects. They are not there to modify or make law, only to say what it is- you know, jurisdiction?
By expressing his views on outcomes he has called his impartiality into question. Furthermore he has used his position on the bench to profit, which he simply is not allowed to do, period.

I for one do not have a problem with him being a conservative. I'm not thrilled to know that a man who is supposed to be executing justice apparently loathes the idea that a woman would actually want to take advantage of her natural rights in contravention of what he finds socially normal, but until he went that far I didn't have a problem with his views, only with his mistake. There are some things you just can't do. You don't break the law and say "the liberals are doing it". What would this judge have said to somebody who said, "Nobody follows that law, and I'm just breaking that law to call attention to all the other violators"?

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:00 PM
new development

the judge dierker is now going on a media tour
well, at least he was on the o'reilly factor

here's the segment

apparently the supreme court is liberal...
and this guy is a foot soldier playing by the rules...

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 11:12 PM
This guy has not the foggiest clue what he's talking about! I figured he'd be a very intelligent, very misguided idealogue with a heavy dose of bible belt brutality in his demeanor.

Instead we get this slight little man who probably hates women because they won't sleep with him, and he contradicts himself every time he speaks.

He says its a top down phenomenon starting in the SCOTUS, not a matter of sheer numbers.

Then he answers the next question, "if not at the active initiation of the judges, certainly the acquiescence".

Acquiesence to what? The presumption of constitutionality granted to any law passed by our duly elected government until the presentation of a clear constitutional prohibition of such legislation? In other words acquiescence to democracy? How is that not a matter of sheer numbers?

He claims that sex is the third rail of the judicial system- anyone who touches it is fried. Does he really not see that this clearly points to the wrongs of the conservative side, totally undermining his claim of a liberal offensive? I defy anyone to point out any case where a suit was initiated because the left wanted to require someone to practice lewdness.

As far as I know, the standard formula is that conservatives forbid lewdness, and then liberals defend their own right to it.

Maybe if Dierker is done getting a rubdown from the "Culture Warrior", he can go speak to a serious journalist and see how long his dribble stands up to scrutiny.

top topics


log in