Judge Tosses Whites Out Of Court.

Originally posted by Sublime620

That's true with everyone. You know why blacks think all whites look alike, whites think all asians look alike, and so forth? Because most people look at race before anything else.

So when a white guy sees a black guy for instance, they think, "He's black" and go no further. Whereas if they saw a white guy, they wouldn't distinguish him as white so they have to look for other features.

Well, Thanks for clearing the question up about if you are a racist bigot or not.

Everyone has bigotry in them to some point. We are all of different ethnic backgrounds and don't all have the same beliefs and tastes,preferences and so on.

(Bigotry - 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. )

I may not like your taste in cars or food,vice versa.You may not like my choice of music.This doesn't mean I don't like you because we have different tastes but technically we're all bigots.

If someone doesn't like you because of the color of your skin then that's sheer ignorance.I will say I personally don't like the way any race tries to use the race card because now that's suggesting the entire people have the same views on a certain belief which isn't the case.These days it just seems like everyone abuses this for their own benefit while in my personal belief it demeans an entire race and it's even sadder that it isn't evenly applied to everyone's race.

This is basically what bothers white people about this.Everyone knows that if it was turned around that it would be a major racial issue. I personally am not offended at all by this but am offended that I am persecuted as if I have ties to some of the allegations of past and present for which it basically becomes a race against race issue. I never done the black community wrong so I have nothing to apologize about and what kills me is other people making apologies for someone elses wrong doings.If you did nothing wrong don't apologize especially for an entire race.

reply to post by Mr. Ree


First of all, calling me a racist bigot is redundant. lol

Second, did you even read the post? Or any of my other posts? What I stated is not my opinion, it's science. It's a fact.

People who don't do that are said to have "cultural intelligence", but most people do look at race first. If the race is different from theirs, they don't go any further off first glance.

That's not me being a bigot, that's just what studies have shown. Sorry that offends you.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Sublime620]

Two points I have to make.

1. The judge is not a bigot. He was not trying to tick people off, and his intentions were good.

2. Though his intentions were good, his choice of action was bad. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he did not think it through enough. I think he was just overwhelmed by his urge to speak to the defendant as a 'mentor' type character.

He could have done exactly what he did, but without removing people from the courtroom based on race. He could have spoken with the defendant 1 on 1.

I think the judge should realize his mistakes, and apologize to the public for acting poorly, when he was supposed to show an example of equality. I do not think that he should lose his job(because his intentions were good), but I do think he should apologize for his wrongdoing to keep his job.

If, then, he does not see anything wrong with his actions (on the basis that they were well-intentioned) he should be removed. This shows that he cannot be impartial and believes that the end justifies the means.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


According to his words, he didn't dismiss anyone based off of race. He dismissed all of the lawyers, white or not. That's it. No one else.

I just watched the video again. He states that what he did was not racist.

I think that is true, but it was stupid, and I think he is going about resolving this issue poorly.

If he wants to solve this issue he needs to do this...

1. Admit his actions were a mistake. He should have handled it differently, period. For a judge to excuse people from his courtroom because of the color of their skin is wrong. It does not matter if it was just the lawyers, one white lady in the back, or every single member of the race. It wouldn't matter if the judge was white, and excused all the white people or any combination.
To remove any person from a court room based on the race of the individual is WRONG.

2. He should stop seeing this as a racist/not racist argument. The man is not racist; what he did is not racist (that implies intent), but what he did was in poor taste for racial reasons.

He, and the public, need to realize that the racist/not racist issue is just mudding up the waters of the REAL problem this is. The problem is what he did.

The judge is not racist AND what he did was wrong. Yes, it can be both.

edit: it is mentioned in the video that he wanted to talk one-on-one with black people. I am assuming that this means he did not want any one else in his courtroom.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by DINSTAAR]

Originally posted by Quazga
You don't understand that the judge own's his courtroom not the public. The judicial branch is not accountable to the electorate. It was created this way on purpose.

Do you really think our forefathers had this in mind and would have abided by it without question? I think not.

People need to be educated on the fact that the three branches of government are all different, yet United. People need to learn that Judges are there to "Interpret the law".

Agreed. How are his actions in the courtroom in this case, "interpreting the law"?

The people do not own the courtoom. The judge does not work for you, thats why we call them Your Honor. And a Judge can hold anyone in contempt for anything, even a smirk.

He does damn well work for us! No one is above the law! We call them "Your Honor" because it's another accepted title for the word judge, and it's a caryover of an old Brittish tradition of referring to a judge as m' Lud. It means "Lord". Agreed. He can hold someone in contempt. I don't disagree with you on that point. Again- How are his actions in the courtroom in this case, "holding someone in contempt"?

The Judge has supreme power in his court. And the only person who can overturn or censure a Judge's decision is another judge in a higher court.

Again- No one is above the law. . .

Deny Ignorance!

2PacSade-

I was just about to come undone upon reading the thread title and OP but after seeing what happened, there are two different perspectives we can have here.

First of all, it looks as if the white man in the interview viewed it as racist by having whites removed. The black man in the interview viewed it as racist by having it seem that only blacks needed the talking to.

When you look at it like that, you get two justified views. The whites thought it was reverse racism to be removed and the blacks felt it was racist in that it seemed like the whites didn't receive the lecture that the blacks did.

Not a smart move by the judge but it is obvious (from what is shown in the video) that he did it with good intentions. That's enough for me personally to say 'no big deal' even if others still take offense to it.

reply to post by DINSTAAR



reply to post by AshleyD




I believe you both hit the nail on the head.

Good posts!

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Again- No one is above the law. . .

I fail to see how any of this applies. He didn't break any laws, so it's really irrelevant to this topic.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Sublime620]

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Again- No one is above the law. . .

I fail to see how any of this applies. He didn't break any laws, so it's really irrelevant to this topic.

Isn't practicing acts that could be interpreted as "racist", while performing a duty as a judge, be against the law?

That's the only point I was trying to make. I'm not even sure he did.

Although his actions with the baseball bat, even though not directly related to this case, show he's flirted with questionable judgement before.

2Pacsade-

fixed quote

[edit on 1-4-2008 by 2PacSade]

reply to post by 2PacSade


I don't believe so? You got a law? He did not make any judgments based off of racism that I'm aware of. Do you know of any?

Where's your proof of racism? Don't forget to prove intent and state of mind... those are the tough ones!

Something I seem to be missing here, because it seems to be brought up, and then ignored, would be the lawyers. So it's the lawyers themselves who were removed? No body else? And the lawyers were mostly white? So not entirely then?
( sorry, my system here sucks, it's been a good bit since I read the article because the browser keeps crapping out on me, and it's a pain to try to load more than one window at a time on this blasted thing, but I want to get this right)
So the problem then is his singling out the black defendants, based on the number of them he recieves, who ar ebasicaly his own people despite the PC stuff that people keep trying to white wash over.
Look, the evidence is that most of the folks who commit crimes are black. Ok, I get that.
So what the judge is doing here is the same as taking aside a group of kids in a class that are regurally misbehaving then, right? Taking them aside and chastinsing them away from the rest of the class.
Continued a bit.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Yes, he dismissed MOSTLY white lawyers (not all white), to talk to a room of MOSTLY black defendants (not all were black). Also, it says nothing of dismissing anyone else who may have been there.

Just lawyers. I've been pointing this out the whole time but no one cares, except apparently you.

reply to post by RuneSpider


So what is he supposed to do then, leave in a token white guyand include him as well? Yeah, it's a double standard, that's because we are not fully equal yet. Different groups of folk still have a ton of baggage to deal with and sort through yet.
Did the judge do it in athe wrong way? Given the comments I've read so far, it seems so. But at the same time, is there any way he could have given that sort of statment to them as one body like that, in the status as a judge? It'd have been controversial no matter where or when he said it, if he wanted to say it as a judge. And there is a difference between seeing the man on the podium, and then seeing him without the gown and hammer. Instead of "What is it was whites" how about what idf it was a teenager, any race and the judge had just told him he needs to buckle down and get his life in order?

reply to post by Sublime620


Part of the reason I tried to stress it, I think it deserves notice. I think this is a bit of a race issue, sure, but more it's telling someone they need to buckle down and get their lives in order.

[url]http://www.gabar.org/programs/judicial_district_professionalism_program/judicial_district_professionalism_program_frequently_asked_questions/[/ur l]

What kinds of issues does JDPP handle?
Inquiries from only lawyers or judges are referred to
JDPP. JDPP committees may address the following
patterns of conduct:
Unprofessional Judicial Conduct:

* Incivility, bias or conduct unbecoming a judge
* Lack of appropriate respect or deference
* Failure to adhere to Uniform Superior Court Rules
* Excessive delay
* Consistent lack of preparation
* Other conduct deemed professionally inappropriate
by each JDPP with the advice of the Judicial Advisors

Unprofessional Lawyer Conduct:

* Lack of appropriate respect or deference
* Abusive discovery practices
* Incivility, bias or conduct unbecoming a lawyer
* Consistent lack of preparation
* Communication problems
* Deficient practice skills
* Other conduct deemed professionally inappropriate
by each Judicial District Professionalism Committee

Inquiries or requests for assistance relating to conduct
in pending litigation or ongoing transactional matters
are generally better left to the judicial process or the
negotiations of the parties. Consequently, any JDPP
response to such requests should generally be delayed
to the conclusion of the matter.

" Incivility, bias or conduct unbecoming a judge " is
the portion of the statement witch I think would show
what law he might have broke.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by JBA2848]

[edit on 1-4-2008 by JBA2848]

[edit on 1-4-2008 by JBA2848]

I really don't see the difference between this and calling a bunch of people into his chambers. The judge can decide who he wants and doesn't want in his court.

reply to post by JBA2848


And how did he show bias towards the cases? He wasn't speaking as a judge, he was speaking to the defendants as a person.

But all that aside, how did he show bias? There were still people of a different race in the room, and he did not only dismiss white people.

Also, who is the victim? There has to be a victim in any crime/tort.

reply to post by Quazga

There is nothing racist about this. The man simply wanted to speak one on one as a black man to the black public.

Then the black judge should resign from being a judge and write a dang book and join Wright behind a pulpit! He is there to JUDGE cases not PREACH to a select minority! Give me a big fat break!

If a WHITE judge did this................all hell would break loose...and anyone who denies that lives their life blind and in denial.

The race hypocracy is sickening and just plain ridiculous.
It is getting old and needs to STOP.


[edit on 1-4-2008 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by JBA2848
[url]http://www.gabar.org/programs/judicial_district_professionalism_program/judicial_district_professionalism_program_frequently_asked_questions/[/ur l]

What kinds of issues does JDPP handle?
Inquiries from only lawyers or judges are referred to
JDPP. JDPP committees may address the following
patterns of conduct:
Unprofessional Judicial Conduct:

* Incivility, bias or conduct unbecoming a judge
* Lack of appropriate respect or deference
* Failure to adhere to Uniform Superior Court Rules
* Excessive delay
* Consistent lack of preparation
* Other conduct deemed professionally inappropriate
by each JDPP with the advice of the Judicial Advisors

Unprofessional Lawyer Conduct:

* Lack of appropriate respect or deference
* Abusive discovery practices
* Incivility, bias or conduct unbecoming a lawyer
* Consistent lack of preparation
* Communication problems
* Deficient practice skills
* Other conduct deemed professionally inappropriate
by each Judicial District Professionalism Committee

Inquiries or requests for assistance relating to conduct
in pending litigation or ongoing transactional matters
are generally better left to the judicial process or the
negotiations of the parties. Consequently, any JDPP
response to such requests should generally be delayed
to the conclusion of the matter.

" Incivility, bias or conduct unbecoming a judge " is
the portion of the statement witch I think would show
what law he might have broke.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by JBA2848]

[edit on 1-4-2008 by JBA2848]

[edit on 1-4-2008 by JBA2848]

Well, he wasn't uncivil. He was very firm but civil with his request.

He wasn't biased in a judgement, so that doesn't fit either

Conduct unbecoming a judge? I seriously doubt it, I've seen judges clear courtrooms based on any kind of odd determinator. You should visit divorce court... it's hilarious what goes on there. So conduct unbecoming just doesnt fit either


Nope... no law was broken.