Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 26, 2006

'FEMIFASCISTS'?.... For some reason, legal experts seem to believe it's problematic for a sitting judge to write a book bashing everyone with whom he disagrees.

Chapter 1 of Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.'s book, "The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault," has circulated via e-mail since last month and been widely read in legal circles, lawyers and judges say.

The sentiments expressed in that chapter, which frequently uses the term "femifascists" and is titled "The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism," have already prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges.

Other judges and lawyers have said that Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit. One judge said it would be surprising if Dierker was not removed, calling the book "professional suicide."

In a disclaimer at the end of the book, Dierker writes that the views in the book are "personal, and should not be construed as any indication of how I would rule on any case coming before me." No, of course not. Just because he spent nearly 300 pages explaining his beliefs that liberals and "femifascists" are wrong about everything is certainly no reason to question his judicial independence, temperament, and impartiality, right?

Certainly women in St. Louis bringing a case about, say, sexual harassment, can take comfort in knowing that Dierker will be fair and evenhanded, right?

Please.

Steve Benen 10:01 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

And Rush Limbuagh may sue for taking the pleasent phrase FemiNazi that Limbaugh coined and converting with with fruity aliteration to "FemiFacist".

Posted by: Lee Stranahan on December 26, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Sounds like professional suicide to me as well--how can this judge possibly expect that he would not to be asked to recuse himself in any matter where the issue of a person's gender might surface if he's throwing around terms like "femifascist"?

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 26, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

One judge said it would be surprising if Dierker was not removed, calling the book "professional suicide."
Ah, but of course, if he's removed from the bench, then it's the liberals and the "femifascists'" strangle hold on the legal profession that's done it. It's win-win for him. He either keeps his seat, or he gets big speaking fees playing the truth telling victim to other wingnuts.

And why "femifascist" and not "feminazi?" Not scholarly enough? An attempt to link the feminists to the Islamofascists?

Posted by: phleabo on December 26, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Rush Limbaugh with a law degree.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 26, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

It's comforting to know that his sartorial (not to mention tonsorial) sense is equal to his political sense.

See http://tinyurl.com/ucvo3

Posted by: David in NY on December 26, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, this kind of shit should be encouraged and not discouraged, and judges should be elected or serve a limited term.

Do you think this asshole would have different views if he didn't write his book? Are citizens that appear before him (including feminists) better off that he wrote his book or didn't write it? I'd say they are better off that he wrote it. And it is possible that it's better to leave him on the bench than to accept the next politico that keeps his bias hidden in an attempt to become a judge. Or do you believe that John Roberts and Samuel Alito have really never thought about anything before it comes before their bench?

People have biases. Reporters have biases. Judges have biases. Both professions would be better off acknowledging that they do not have papal infallibility and that their reporting and decisions are rarely purely objective and free of bias.

(And frankly, to the extent he might be right, I think femifascist is a lot more accurate than feminazi and does in fact describe much of the corporate-government-academic-legal industrial complex that makes for family law these days.)

Posted by: jerry on December 26, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

This is what we need more of.

Regular people who are not afraid to speak out and call a spade a spade, rather than having to tip toe around PC mine-fields.

If Judge Dierker loses his seat over this, it will once and for all expose the intolerance of femi-nazis and their liberal allies, not to mention the repressive tactics. We need a groundswell of sentiment to rise up to help this judge.

Posted by: egbert on December 26, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

this fine gentleman deserves the Medal Of Freedom

Posted by: cleek on December 26, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

How is this different from Richard Posner writing books? I mean, aside from being loonier than Posner.

Posted by: jayackroyd on December 26, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

"This kind of shit" being letting the fucker publish his book and not forcing him off the bench on that alone. I say we need more of that sort of airing.

Look at Volokh, Kerr, Reynolds, and Althouse.

Thanks to their blogs, these guys cannot pretend to have never thought about abortion. We all now know that Reynolds was a legacy and Althouse fucked her way into her job and that Kerr and Volokh while political wankers can follow basic logic, which Reynolds cannot (and Althouse would only cry as weird partisan logic). Overall, this is a very good step, and we should encourage all lawyers and professors to blog.

(Apologies to Kevvy for saying something bad about his grrrlfriend.)

Posted by: jerry on December 26, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

It's a double bonus, because if this wingnut is held accountable for his wierdo wingnut biases, Limbaugh and his ilk will start moaning about how he was silenced by the "femifacists" and reflexive liars like "ex-liberal" will post bullshit about "freedom of speech" -- omitting, deliberately, that this yo-yo's freedom of speech is constrained by his duties as a judge.

Posted by: Gregory on December 26, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

I think femifascist is a lot more accurate than feminazi and does in fact describe much of the corporate-government-academic-legal industrial complex that makes for family law these days.)

Sounds like you may have lost a custody battle at some point.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 26, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

Paging Mr. Mart Urr. Mart Urr to the courtesy phone, please.

Posted by: shortstop on December 26, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Althouse fucked her way into her job

wow. are you serious?? link?

Posted by: blah on December 26, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Fine. As long as we look into impeaching Breyer for his "Active Liberty".

No one even blinked when the environazi put out his pro-commerce clause / big government diatribe. It's apparently OK for a high court justice to throw away the text of the constitution if they feel it's not in the interest of "people", "individual freedom", and "democracy".

Posted by: Al on December 26, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

FWIW, a state-court judge is unlikely to hear much in the way of sexual harassment cases -- those get filed in (or removed to) federal court 90% of the time. And will be all the more likely to, in this joker's district.

I'm of two minds on the "get the bias in the open" theory. I see the pros, but being able to keep your mouth shut about your biases is also one of the signs that you can put them aside when you put your robes on.

Also, the more judicial speech we get, the more politicized the judiciary becomes, and we have too much of that already.

Posted by: Anderson on December 26, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Why shouldn't our judges get their day in the liberal-bashing limelight, why shouldn't they get their fair share of book deals too? Rush, Hannity, Coulter all get to publicly exhibit their hate-mongering, why shouldn't our judges do the same?
We have an enemy outside our country that the US citizens need to be united against and fight, but instead of uniting, one half of this country is being pitted against the other half by these self-righteous people under the tool of free speech. Free "hate" speech is what it is. I view Limbaugh as being far worse than the very terrorists who are trying to destroy our way of life. Limbaugh and his ilk are heading the charge of destroying this country from within.

He and Coulter and Hannity should be dragged out from behind their safe mics and their book deals. They should be sent to Iraq to do a bit of meet and greet and tell those troops that are Democrats why they are such liberal trash. Let them tell the medics over there that are Democrats why they should only save the conservatives. Tell the Democrat aid workers that their services aren't needed. Have Coulter tell the military women, as well as the middle-eastern women, why feminism/liberalism is so BAD (the irony of her just kills me).

Americans have used their vote to say "enough" but the Republicans are still vomiting out their hate retoric, that they are always good and liberals are always bad. That anyone has bought this crap IN AMERICA for 6 years is beyond my understanding. This country is sick and in desperate need of being pulled together, yet we are over in another country trying to spread democracy. Let's spread some at home for a change.
The ramifications of the ripple effect of this administration reaches globally and far into the futures of our children and grandchildren. I am deeply saddened that our young people will think effective leadership works best as misdirecting and hostile PR spin bent on confusing and circumventing honesty and integrity. Who of you really believes anything that comes out of Washington these days? And congratulations to the Bush and Cheney Families when they retire to their expensive digs and leave the rest of America with the shambles of their reign.
Why shouldn't our judges follow the popular path. They have plenty of examples to follow.

Posted by: Female Minority of Faith on December 26, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Wow. If you follow David in NY's link http://tinyurl.com/ucvo3 to the publisher's information about the book, apparently the judge has doubts about whether it's constitutional to tax citizens.

"Why do the courts claim the power to tax us?"

But wouldn't prosecutors delight in drawing Judge Dierker when accusing someone of sexual harassment, illegal behavior while protesting abortion or displaying prejudice against gays in the workplace? Wouldn't this book be automatic grounds for appeal if they lost? That would be the reason for removing the judge, I would think. All kinds of cases that would ordinarily end with his ruling could be challenged by citing from his book, thus leading to the expense of second trials.

Posted by: cowalker on December 26, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

There are two questions here:

1. Should this judge preside over cases involving feminism?

2. Should he remain in office?

Clearly the answer to #1 is No and the answer to #2 is Yes.

This story is more evidence that liberals no longer support Freedom of Speech. Conservatives didn't demand that Breyer be removed from office for presenting his liberal views. Freedom of Speech gave him the right to do so. But, many liberals don't think a judge has the right to present conservative views.

The liberals' abandonment of free speech is one reason I no longer am one.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 26, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

The liberals' abandonment of free speech is one reason I no longer am one.

The only thing standing between you and a fascist state run by the Republican Party is liberalism, and you should appreciate the efforts of patriotic Americans to defend your right to free speech against the use of our intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on American citizens.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 26, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives didn't demand that Breyer be removed from office for presenting his liberal views.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 26, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

By all means, I encourage every wingnut judge to write a book that crystalizes their fractured thinking.

By the way, freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Free speech zones? Stupidest thing I've ever heard of. The entire nation is a "free speech zone."

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, why isn't that Coulter skank locked up for fomenting a terrorist threat?

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

A dubious milestone.

US military deaths in Iraq pass 9/11 toll

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=UKNews1&storyID=2006-12-26T133917Z_01_PAR645206_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ1.xml&WTmodLoc=HP-C1-TopStories-3

Posted by: er on December 26, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Saying that liberals don't allow free speech is shutting them down with falsehoods. Falsehoods should always be refutted and rebutted. Free speech isn't a contest about who yells the loudest.
Free speech is still free in this country.
I wouldn't want my two girls hearing "free speech" from say the KKK, thinking that the KKK's interpretation of things is how most folks feel. I can't be with my girls 24/7 and they come home with some of the most perplexing and distressing items at times. Free speech must be tempered with more than one side of the issue or it can be mistaken as main stream opinion (aka Talk Radio). Free speech is not who gets headlines first. We have experienced too much of that lately from the Republican camp.

Posted by: Liberal on December 26, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Let's try that again:

ex-lib writes: The liberals' abandonment of free speech is one reason I no longer am one.

So I assume we can expect to see you change your handle to ex-conservative in light of this? (printed December 16)

MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last night defended his call to limit freedom of speech to combat terrorism, comments that last month provoked strident criticism from liberal groups.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives didn't demand that Breyer be removed from office for presenting his liberal views.

Tom Delay certainly did.

RE: Terry Schiavo case--

Condolences quickly gave way to anger and accusations, with the top Republican in the House of Representatives warning judges at both the state and federal level they will have to answer for their actions.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said Tom DeLay, the Republican leader who moved the Florida case to the federal arena.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 26, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Well, Tom DeLay said that "judicial activists" should be impeached and imprisoned. Sounds like this clown fits the bill.

I suspect this guy's feelings of sexual inadequacy are behind his apparent loathing of women. Maybe he should look into penis enlargement surgery.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on December 26, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Conservatives didn't demand that Breyer be removed from office for presenting his liberal views.

i suppose whether or not a justice writing a book to 'present his views' counts as an impeachable offense, is a matter of interpretation

Posted by: cleek on December 26, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

'[T]he peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.'

'On Liberty', John Stuart Mill

Posted by: MsNThrope on December 26, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Look, I think we have been coopted as part of the good judge's PR operation. Here is how his own book is described on Random House's site:
"A judge for more than twenty years, Robert Dierker has enjoyed a distinguished legal career. But now that career may be on the line. Why? Because he is breaking the code of silence that has long kept judges...." See http://tinyurl.com/ucvo3

The whole business about endangering his job is pure publicity hype. The guy was just "retained" in a "retention election" in November and will be with the good people of St. Louis, continuing to sit as a trial judge in a lower state court on such weighty matters as slip-and-fall cases, for another six years. If he'd had any guts, he would have put his book out before the election, but no, it's just gone on sale today. Some brave challenger of the status quo!

We shouldn't be doing him the favor of taking him seriously.

Posted by: David in NY on December 26, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Yet Sam Brownback wants to keep Janet Neff from being a federal judge because she attended a committment ceremony for a neighbor's gay daughter.

Posted by: anandine on December 26, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hi, I'm a conservative republican and I'm supposed to say that I hate the liberals for what they've done to this society (vague assertion #1). I hate radical feminists for emasculating our society (vague assertion #2). And while I used to be a liberal (general lie #1) I had to renounce liberalism because I found the hate on that side too prevelant (vague assertion #3 and lie #2).

Apply this post where needed, repeat as necessary.

Oh, and the judge. Doesn't it all come down to judgment? If this person cannot exercise judgment then how can they claim to be objective? Come on. Why write this piece of crap now? Why not after you retire? The same people would read it then, wouldn't they?

Any idiot with this kind of failed thinking doesn't need to be on the bench.

Just my take.

Posted by: ice weasel on December 26, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'm betting this 'fair-minded' jurist has long term political aspirations, maybe even presidential delusions.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on December 26, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

>"Yeah, why isn't that Coulter skank locked up for fomenting a terrorist threat?"

Because Terrorism is defined as violence not approved by the United States Government.

Approved actions against defenseless civilians are carried out by 'freedom fighters'.

Posted by: buford on December 26, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider: the top Republican in the House of Representatives warning judges at both the state and federal level they will have to answer for their actions.
------------------------------
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said Tom DeLay

Right. Their actions. Judges should be held responsible for their rulings. A Supreme Court justice should be responsible for the legal theories s/he uses.

But, I've seen no criticism of Judge Dierker's legal rulings or his conduct on the bench. When you find that he's mishandling cases, I'll be glad to join you in calling for his ouster.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 26, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

I always get a shiver of sheer delight when insecure bastards kill their careers. LOL!

Tsk Tsk he should have used his bigger brain, the stupid fool.

Posted by: Silver Owl on December 26, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

He is just moving a piece on the board. This could go one of two ways. The book could either be off the radar and circulate through evangelical churches; or it could start a firstorm and make him a martyr.

Either way, I predict that he will challenge Matt Blunt from the right in the 2008 primary. Blunt pissed off the religious right and the pro-lifers when he backed Amendment 2, which protected federally legal stem-cell research.

Missouri politics...Not for the faint of heart. This will bear watching.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect this guy's feelings of sexual inadequacy are behind his apparent loathing of women. Maybe he should look into penis enlargement surgery.

Oh, that shit doesn't work.

Um, or so I've heard.

Posted by: frank fucking rizzo on December 26, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

What would your decision be on these alleged facts? Do they state a legal claim?

"Several months after it started, the woman ended the affair. But the doctor began calling her every night on her car phone or at home and, when he couldn't reach her there, tracked her down and called her at friends' homes. She asked him to stop.

During the day, at the office, the doctor [her employer] began trying to touch the woman's breasts and buttocks and exposed his genitals to her, requesting that she perform sexual acts. She didn't, and again asked him to stop. According to the suit, the doctor continued his behavior for seven more months."

Here's what Judge Dierker found:

"From Anita Hill to Monica Lewinsky, the cry of 'sexual harassment' has been selectively raised to advance certain groups' political agendas under the guise of promoting equal opportunity in the workplace, or under the banner of 'equality' in academe," the opening paragraph of Dierker's order reads, citing chapter and verse from Slouching Towards Gomorrah, a book written by failed Supreme Court nominee and ultraconservative Robert Bork.

"Spawned in the protean atmosphere of federal employment discrimination litigation ... the theories of the 'sexual harassment' police have stretched their tentacles from college facilities to Supreme Court confirmation hearings to legal and judicial ethics ... and now seek to ensnare the common law of torts," Dierker continues. "The Court concludes that the common law does not enact Cardinal Newman's definition of a gentleman, nor Catherine (sic) MacKinnon's vapid maunderings, and that Plaintiff's petition at present fails to state a claim."

Dierker moves on to the two counts filed by the woman: Count I, alleging "intentional infliction of emotional distress;" and Count II, which "alleges the same facts, but attempts to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress."

According to law, Dierker states, intentional infliction of emotional distress must contain the following elements: "defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; the conduct caused severe emotional distress; and the conduct was intended only to cause extreme emotional distress to the victim."

Dierker states: "Indeed, as pleaded, the facts alleged at most show that Defendant was seeking to gratify his own sexual urges despite rejection by Plaintiff."

From a story by Melinda Roth in 1999 Riverfront Times.

Does the Judge keep his personal views out of the courtroom? Can rape defendants cite that last sentence as grounds for acquittal in his court? You decide.

Posted by: David in NY on December 26, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

I live in the St Louis area. I will keep K D posted on developements on this scumbag.

It's great when fascists out themselves.

Posted by: POed Lib on December 26, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Right. Their actions. Judges should be held responsible for their rulings. A Supreme Court justice should be responsible for the legal theories s/he uses.

The Supreme Court refused to consider the Schiavo case--that was their ruling, in a sense, in the matter. And the Florida Supreme Court upheld the rights of Michael Schiavo.

When the number two man in the Legislative Branch of government (at that time, he was probably more powerful than Hastert) says he's going to hold judges accountable for their actions, it generally means de-funding the courts, impeachement of judges, or using legislation to marginalize their ability to issue rulings.

And *that* is intimidation and not such a good thing if you truly believe in checks and balances.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 26, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

POed Lib - keep me posted about this too, please?

So do you think I was in the ballpark up-thread, or off my rocker?

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

In (blue) New York State, the late Justice Harold Rothwax wrote a similar book bashing liberals.

He didn't face any consequences for it, nor will Dierker, because they are conservatives.

A judge who writes a book bashing conservatives in similarly crude language, though, will be impeached or removed immediately.

Posted by: captcrisis on December 26, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen:

I don't know if this twit will challenge Blunt.

I don't think that Blunt has a real coalition left. He has no moderates in his group. He has several damaged the safety net in MO, and anyone with any compassion at all has left. The real right-wingers are feeling betrayed by the Stem Cell thing, which Blunt supported.

Blunt is a little turd, and I don't think he will be re-elected.

Posted by: POed Lib on December 26, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

I hope Matty Blunt's political life is short and sad. It has already been sad for the citizens of Missouri.

I was pretty sure he was doomed to be a one-termer when (Republican State Treasurer) Sarah Steeleman announced her plans to challenge him in the '08 primary so quick that the announcement might as well have been made during his inauguration address in 2005.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

It was just announced that MO college tuition rates are the highest in the midwest. The little turds in the MO House and Senate have been cutting taxes while also cutting aid for the MO colleges.

Posted by: POed Lib on December 26, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Tell me about it. I have two kids and myself in Grad School in the U of MO system, and husband and daughter are in medical school in another system.

I gave validated fee receipts for holiday gifts.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

And don't forget he wanted to sell MOHELA, the state student loan agency.

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 26, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

He appears to have written a book about how hard it is on a man to be expected to be fair and impartial when deciding cases about people who he doesn't really think should have any legal standing or rights.
These liberal ideas of equal justice for everyone must be really hard to tolerate when you think the majority of the population is subhuman.
Hard to figure why he would even want to be a judge, unless he is an authoritarian asshat of course.

Posted by: thebewilderness on December 26, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Can't wait for the whining about how he was punished by the Libowomafasciosoes for his opinions.


Give Fundies an inch and they'll burn the place to the ground.


Posted by: owlbear1 on December 27, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

bad credit credit cards bad credit credit cards

Posted by: bad credit on December 28, 2006 at 7:35 AM | PERMALINK

The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault," is one book that I am going to purchase!

Any book that speaks the truth about our current judicial state of "femifascists" or "feminazis" has my interest. Who better then to see first hand and comment on what has destroyed our nation then a judge.

True feminists support equal rights. This includes family law, an area that is currently unconstitutionally dominated by child custody rulings granting mothers physical placement 85% of the time! "Part of ending sexism involves eliminating the inhuman practice of awarding a parent �visitation� to his or her own child" -- Karen DeCrow, past president of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Posted by: Bryan Iehl - Founder of IowaFathers.com on December 28, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly