Judge Tosses Whites Out Of Court.

Originally posted by Sublime620
You say that black people would be mad if a white judge did something similar. Maybe.

You know they would, there's no maybe about it.

A white judge guilty of the same actions would be crucified on the 6 O'clock news and put off the bench. Pointing that out isn't racism, it's simply acknowledging the double standard that's prevalent in our society today.

More importantly, would you? Would you be enraged if a white judge asked black lawyers to leave so that he could explain to everyone that racism towards black was not tolerable?

Yes, I would be enraged. A judge has no right to ask any party to leave the court room based upon their skin color, whether they're white, black, yellow, brown, etc.

reply to post by 19DCW71


See, this is where I think the problem is. I agree that it could be perceived as a bad idea. But as you just admitted, the intent behind it wasn't.

Intent is huge in law, and there is a reason for that.

reply to post by Sublime620

It's actually prtty sad. I read something which is so true. I'm unsure of the author though.

"The spread of knowledge and education has taught mankind little in the art of self control and even less in living with one another.

With all this learned knowledge you would thimk we could live like civil adults with the same cause. A better life for our youth.Instaed,many people take this knowledge and apply it to a useless destructive cause.

We humans are a sad species.

THE POINT IS NOT THE INTENT ... THE POINT IS WHAT HAPPEND ... THE JUDGE SENT ALL THE WHITES or REALLY ALL THE NON-BLACKS out of the courtroom ... I am interested ... Was there a typer/bailiff/any other members of the Court room that was there to work sent OUT ?!?!?!?!? The judge was basically saying there is a difference in people here ... Everyone agrees that ... there is a difference between being raised in the bronx and in some Nicer upper scale neighborhood. But that difference is what is being corrected and NO not all people in the ghettos are black or white anymore ... GO TAKE A LOOK FOR YOURSELF ....Maybe a percentage .. but that is what it takes 1 % at a time ..

Originally posted by pexx421
I think a lot of people look at this and say "if the shoe was on the other foot, the white people would have been called racist". Which, while unfortunately true, doesnt mean that the event was racist, it only means that the cry of racism is often used when the intent is not there. I dont think this judges intent was to disparage white or black people...do any of you? I think he was making a statement to people and trying to remove obstacles to their hearing what he said. I dont particularly see anything wrong with what he did, and crying racism here is just as bad as all those rediculous times jesse jackson cries racism when its not, just so he can hog some more attentionl. So if you people want to be like Jesse, go right ahead....next you'll be telling us that hurricanes are also caused by carcinogens and holes in the ozone layer, like jesse did after katrina. Work hard so you can live up to his image, we'll be cheerin ya on!

reply to post by Deus_Brandon


Nope. You missed the point.

And to answer your question, you should read the article or listen to the story to find out. He only sent the lawyers out. Everyone else stayed, white or not.

It has nothing to do with what you said. It was him trying to talk man to man with the defendants.

You need to chill out son.

INTENT should never have a huge part in the LAW ...
Unless the intent was to kill someone and they didn't kill them ... Then who's goign to say .. Oh .. dangit I meant to kill that old chap ... ... The intent of a JUDGE is to ABIDE by the LAw SET FORTH in front of him ... Not make up new stuff as you go along ... NO WHERE EVER in LAW can a judge dismiss people out of a court room unauthorized. All I can say is I WISH I would have been there ... This would have been a whole different situation.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by 19DCW71

 

See, this is where I think the problem is. I agree that it could be perceived as a bad idea. But as you just admitted, the intent behind it wasn't.

Intent is huge in law, and there is a reason for that.

OK OK that was a bad posts .. hahaha ... Could have put more behind it but .. didn't APOLOGIES PLEASE REMOVE !!

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Deus_Brandon]

reply to post by Deus_Brandon


Are you kidding me? Frame of mind and intent are crucial.

That is, unless you want to get sued or sent to jail over misunderstandings.

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
AND ON A SIDE NOT .. since I am a huge ATHLETE ... Most of the blacks will run faster jump higher and just be plain out more Athletic than any whites will ever be ... So lets make sure we have 50% of both race in the NBA and all other sports ... while we are do it ... Oh yeah I mean GOLF TOO !!!!

Lawl. I think we know who the real racist is.

Ok ... On the FINAL and last note ... and you guys will not hear anything from me on this thread again ... And yea I am alittle pissed anyone and yes ANYONE I don't care if the president ... well bad example .. i don't care if the POPE himself ... says this was not negligent in this Judges fault .... READ THE FOLLWING ... and tell me how this is right !?!??

AND IF ANYONE ARGUES AGAINST THIS ... I AM SO SORRY YOU DON'T HAVE A BRAIN ... PLEASE RE READ BELOW COMMENTS AGAIN ...

Constitutional Colorbliness is an aspect of United States Supreme Court case evaluation that began with Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. Prior to this (and for a good while afterwards), the Supreme Court considered color as a determining factor in many landmark cases.
Constitutional colorblindness holds that skin color or race is virtually never a legitimate ground for legal or political distinctions, and thus, any law that is "color conscious" (regardless of whether it's intent is to subordinate a group, or remedy discrimination) is presumptively unconstitutional.

The concept, therefore, has been brought to bear both against vestiges of Jim Crow oppression, as well as remedial efforts aimed out overcoming such discrimination (such as affirmative action).

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Deus_Brandon]

reply to post by Deus_Brandon


One great thing about law is Judicial Review. Judges don't have to follow every precedent, which makes sense. Some precedents are outdated, and some, such as this one, are completely irrelevant.

This has to do with making judgments based on race.

Prior to this (and for a good while afterwards), the Supreme Court considered color as a determining factor in many landmark cases.

He was not setting them free because they are black, or making any sort of relevant decision based off of it. He merely dismissed the lawyers in the room and lectured them.

Constitutional colorblindness holds that skin color or race is virtually >never a legitimate ground for legal or political distinctions, and thus, any law that is "color conscious" (regardless of whether it's intent is to subordinate a group, or remedy discrimination) is presumptively unconstitutional.

No legal or political distinctions were made. Once again, this does not have to do with law in the sense of court, this had nothing to do with court. This had to do with a judge asking a room of defendants, "What are you people doing with your lives?"

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
Ok ... On the FINAL and last note ... and you guys will not hear anything from me on this thread again ...

See ya.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Sublime620]

the judge should be history! Black America has a major crime problem and yet it's everybody elses problem. Get rid of the judge and lock em up because thats where they are most happy.

mikell

reply to post by mikellmikell


What does that even mean? "It's everyone elses problem"? What?

Black America? Dude... really? Subscribe to your own cause.

Certainly was an odd thing to do, but do any of you listen to the entire video before getting worked up?

He CHASTISED the black defendant (or whatever he was) and apparently gave him and his lawyers a verbal tongue-lashing in regards to black-on-black crime, rape, home invasions etc. He expressed how he was tired of seeing black males in his court room. In other words...he was expressing his personal views on the negative issues regarding his race and it really had nothing to do with the court. No it was not even the appropriate forum at all.

I can't say I don't understand his frustration with Blacks and crime.

I have read of lot of people on ATS saying the same thing he has about blacks and crime. Even quoting Bill Cosby's very honest critique of the negatives in current black culture. Is not this something we want to be addressed among the African-Americans in the United States?

Didn't he say what a lot of people in similar threads regarding race issue feel?

He pretty much said word for word what I've read here from black and whites when complaining about those same facts.

Racism? No.

Inappropriate? Yes.

Overreacting? lol...yes most people are.

There are better examples of racism towards Whites that I have personally seen/felt and this ain't it.

- Lee

Originally posted by lee anoma

Racism? No.

Inappropriate? Yes.

Overreacting? lol...yes most people are.

There are better examples of racism towards Whites that I have personally seen/felt and this ain't it.

- Lee

Thank you. Well put.

The funny part is that many of the people complaining about his "racism" have been fairly racist in their posts.

One guy somehow tied this to "atheletes" and blacks in sports. I wanted to ask him if rap music was the next topic.

reply to post by lee anoma

He CHASTISED the black defendant (or whatever he was) and apparently gave him and his lawyers a verbal tongue-lashing in regards to black-on-black crime, rape, home invasions etc. He expressed how he was tired of seeing black males in his court room. In other words...he was expressing his personal views on the negative issues regarding his race and it really had nothing to do with the court. No it was not even the appropriate forum at all.

So you think he meant to say go commit crimes against the white man not the black man. Complaining about black on black crime is just a way of saying do it to others not your own kind.
Race is a touchy subject where you have to be careful no matter what you say it will turn against you, thats why in court ethics is not meant to be used in any way "color blindness" or should I say blind justice.

reply to post by Sublime620


I do have to say that his position as a judge means he has to follow the law. A judge does not create laws or choose which laws to enforce, congress enacts laws in this country and decides what should and should not be laws a judge is there to interput them during court proceedings.

And his actions that he has showed in the court room has given ever white defendant that doesn't like there sentence to have a retrial based on him being racist. The benifit of the doubt has to be given which means all his cases are now in jepeardy of mistrial.

Originally posted by JBA2848
Complaining about black on black crime is just a way of saying do it to others not your own kind.

That is the most ridiculous statement yet.

I won't even dignify such nonsense with the longer response to it I just deleted. I'll just say that many non-blacks in the media have done various and numerous reports on the same issues in the black community so according to you Anderson Cooper was making a case to have himself shot instead of the many black teenagers in the high school he recently reported on?

Absurd.

The posts and threads I have recently been reading on ATS seem to be getting more and more bigoted. Someone even made reference to Rev. Wright in a noose in the reparation thread that was really just plain nasty.

The same people crying foul are making sweeping generalizations and racially biased posts. Have some members come here to start up racial fights? I'm starting to wonder what the purpose of these sort of threads are if the response just end up being "see the blacks all want this...the blacks all want that"

Address the issue itself if you will but stop rambling on with racist rhetoric and generalizations about what all blacks want to do. This is Breaking News not the bigoted soapbox some of you are making.

The MOD's need to address these slanderous and outrageous comments accordingly.

P.S. Stop starting off every one of these threads asking for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Both of those characters are nothing more than greedy ineffective attention-seeking media whores and I have met quite a few blacks in my life that feel the same way about them.

- Lee

First of all, to nitpick- its THE not TEH- and secondly, a black judge may want to talk to "his people", but will they listen? Whites talked to Whites in the Civil Rights era, but how many listened? Its the reception that worries me. How many people are listening and learning to be civil, fair, unbiased, and unpredjudiced?

Its true that a lot of Blacks are in prison for violent crimes but only because THEY PUT THEMSELVES THERE. They didn't listen. They carried the wrong attitude, a ghetto attitude, a Rap attitude, a chip-on-their-shoulder that was then dared to be knocked off by society. And it was!!! SO?

Will they listen?

Have a nice day.

reply to post by lee anoma


My post earlier made the point then a judge is expected to not bring race into a court room due to how it may look. No matter what the intentions are. People learned that a long time ago and decide to make it law. A judge is not supposed to be biased. And what he did in the court room made him biased.