Comments on: Dierker Embarrassment

By: TM

TM — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:11:45 +0000

Just a couple of different perspectives on Judge Dierker revealing his beliefs. It seems disingenuous for him to delay the publication from the origional October 6th publication date, then point to strong voter support. There are a lot of ways for judges to influence the outcome that aren’t as obvious as the end conclusions. What gets into evidence,what’s kept out,enforcing discovery or not, etc.etc. Judges are given the charge of judging witnesses voracity, how can judge Dierker really be impartial in assessing a witness with any history in any of the categories he sees as fascists,tyrants in the system even if it’s not the focus of the case?
How can any future litigants feel comfortable knowing they might be fodder for his next book, or next radio or TV appearance? Will he truely make is rulings without influence from his own political belief’s or to enhance his media career? Can the commission on retirement look positively on his promise to tone down his rhetoric and remain unbiased, when his response to their letter was to write an entire book (although that is entirely different than putting his political views in his rulings)? but realistically he is near retirement age, and just what is his motivation to set aside his convictions in the courtroom?

By: JG Hitzert

JG Hitzert — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:29:12 +0000

Was the ruling in regard to the Psychiatrist in regard to the plaintiff’s attorney not pursuing the matter under the aegis of the correct legal framework. I thought that the only thing the plaintiff had to show in most cases is that the defendent created a hostile work environment. In other words did the plantiff’s attorney ratchet up the claim and then have it backfire.

I’m a liberal that has followed Mr. Dierker for a number of years. I’ve met him in fact, though just socially. In two of his high profile cases: One that had to do with paternity, the man had proven through dna tests he was not the father of the child even though he had acted in that capacity for the entirety of the childs life. Dierker ruled that he had the parental obligation to pay support, something I would believe to be in line with feminist beliefs. The other case having to do with Spawn and Tony Twist. Both controvesial and both seemed like solid rulings to this liberal ear.

This sexual harassment ruling though has always troubled me. As it has been quoted it doesn’t ring true. I would like to know more specifics.

By: ArchPundit

ArchPundit — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:10:04 +0000

Pointing out a shocking lack of judicial ethics by taking positions like calling potential plaintiffs–known as women who think they shouldn’t be harassed sexually in the work place is hardly an ad hominen attack.

Being an originalist is no defense to misinterpreting the law to fit your pet theory. The law has long been clear on the issue that it the exact opposite of what he claimed in the RFT story is true. Intention to cause harm is not required and in his book he gets it wrong again.

As Scott put it at Lawyers, Guns and Money put it:

“In other words, we’re pretty clearly dealing with a book that is not only Grade-A wingnuttery but utter crap as legal analysis. You have to like the fact that it complains about liberals ignoring original meaning and then argues that Courts should ignore the original intent of the 5th and 14th Amendments and strike down affirmative action laws, how only 50 years after the end of formal apartheid he can call racial discrimination a “trumped-up phenomenon,” and of course how he can accuse liberals of distorting the Equal Protection clause in the wake of Bush v. Gore. The juxtaposition between the appalling nature of affirmative action and the hearty endorsement of racial profiling is also good. I’d also love to know what radically lawless pro-feminist Supreme Court decisions he’s talking about; maybe U.S. v. Virginia, which was so radical it was joined by noted MacKinnonite William Rehnquist. And to top it all off, you have a sitting judge–after claiming that anyone who doesn’t share his far-right views doesn’t believe in the law at all–claiming that it can be acceptable to resist Supreme Court decisions.

Verdict: I think we’re dealing with someone who makes Mark Levin look like Blackstone. As well as someone utterly unfit to serve on the bench.

…UPDATE: As a correspondent reminds me, in fairness Dierker does talk about sexual harassment too. So perhaps he’s talking about Meritor, which was also written by that well-known far-left champion of human rights William Hobbs Rehnquist. Or perhaps he means Onacle v. Sundowner Offshore Services, which was written by prominent Andrea Dworkin disciple Antonin Scalia, with a concurrence from radfem in theory and practice Clarence Thomas. The femifascist conspiracy is a far-reaching one, brothers and sisters!”

Both the book and his previous ruling are not just problematic from a point of view of judicial ethics in that he ridicules potential litigants, but the case cited is specifically wrong. The entire body of rulings on hostile work environment contradict his claim in that case and the plain reading of the law does as well.

He is a judicial activist.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:55:40 +0000

Ad hominem attacks are rarely convincing. A judge is bound to follow the law, not his personal views and to impugn Judge Dierker’s integrity is without basis in his record. Can you cite one case where his honor did not follow the law? If so, then your position might have more weight.

Dierker as an originalist, would be much less likely to insert his own feelings into a case than, say, a justice on the 9th circuit appeals court.

By: David S.

David S. — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:42:51 +0000

Gotta disagree with you here, AP. I know numerous trial lawyers who disagree strongly with Dierker’s well-known political views but state that he is completely fair and impartial as a judge. You calling him a moron is insulting and totally wrong. He is probably the best judge the City of St. Louis has. The fact that he quoted Bork in a ruling in know way means the ruling is incorrect, and just because the ruling does not seem nice to someone’s liberal instincts also does not make it wrong. Judge Dierker is more than willing to rule in ways he may persoannly disagree with in order to follow the law, and that exact statement comes from someone who knows what he is talking about. Stop by darts sometime.