Today's outstanding jackass: Judge Edith Jones!
Federal judge accused of making racial comments
June 4, 2013, 6:42 pm
Jones is accused of saying that certain "racial groups like African-Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime," and are "prone to commit acts of violence" and be involved in more violent and "heinous" crimes than people of other ethnicities.
Sure, because it's not like judges are supposed to be un-biased or anything!
Holy shit! Did she actually say this out loud?
Her comments were not recorded, but five students and one attorney who were in attendance signed affidavits on what was said.
Okay, then. So she's a huge racist. Yawn. What else ya got?
The complaint also states that Jones said defendants' claims of racism, innocence, arbitrariness, and violations of international law and treaties are just "red herrings" used by opponents of the death penalty
Innocence? You know, I could give you "international law" or "arbitrariness" maybe, but innocence? Innocence is a red herring? Isn't innocence kinda the main thing? Does she mean that defendant's claims of innocence are always lies? Because that at least has some sort of logic to it, even though it's demonstrably false, but how is innocence a "Red Herring?"
red herring: noun
something that distracts attention from the real issue
Examples of RED HERRING:
The argument is a red herring. It actually has nothing to do with the issue.
. . . and that claims of "mental retardation" by capital defendants disgust her. The fact that those defendants were convicted of a capital crime is sufficient to prove they are not "mentally retarded," the complaint alleges Jones to have said.
Um,
Federal court clears way for execution of mentally disabled Georgia man
And,
Supreme Court Outlawed Executing Mentally Retarded, But Texas Does It Anyway
And um,
Scalia Denies Stay, Allows Execution of Mentally Retarded Man in Texas
But sure. Yeah, the mentally disabled are never executed. Not in this great land of ours.
Oh, but it gets worse.
Okay, maybe not worse, but just as bad.
According to Think Progress: "she wrote a dissenting opinion claiming that a woman who “was repeatedly propositioned, was groped and grabbed, [had] pornography [] placed in her locker, and [had] other employees broadcast[] obscene comments about her over the company’s public address system” did not experience sexual harassment."
I guess she was never harassed in the same way that the mentally disabled are never executed?
She also said the death penalty provides a public service by allowing an inmate to “make peace with God,” citing an article called “Hanging Concentrates the Mind,” according to the Austin Chronicle.
I feel so at peace!
But, also according to TP, she is a frequent recipient of something I was unaware of, judicial junkets.
This is a very disturbing practice in which judges attend corporate-sponsored "legal education" activities before ruling on cases which affect those corporations.
The Center for Public Integrity reports:
After all, the Center found instances where judges traveled to seminars paid for by oil companies, the American Petroleum Institute, or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and later issued rulings favoring some of those same sponsors. . . And, there is nothing illegal about having the trip paid for by corporations who in some cases are also litigants before the federal courts.
Because if corporations are allowed to buy the Congress, Senate, White House and regulatory agencies, why should the courts be any different?
