I wish to welcome the rest of the world to the wacky world of Robert Dierker
Dierker is incredibly well educated, but still a complete moron. In his recent book he decried femifascists. Benen wrote:
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.
Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.will now hear the case of The People vs. The Bitch Had It Coming.
What they didn’t know, is they were closer to the truth than they knew:
The case landed in the courtroom of then-Presiding Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr., of the 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis, who issued his controversial 16-page order on Oct 5. Before tackling the woman’s specific allegations, Dierker engaged in a lecture about the sexual politics of the late 20th century:
“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.
” ….it seems clear that, except for the denizens of the cloud-cuckoo-land of radical feminism, no court has held that sexual advances are ipso facto actionable. More is required to establish a tort than a rejected advance.”
“The pleaded facts must show outrageous conduct, i.e., conduct which is regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society,” Dierker continues. “Mere solicitation to begin, or renew, a sexual relationship is not such conduct. There must be more.” In essence, says the judge, the doctor was not intentionally trying to inflict emotional harm but simply seeking sex.
“Plaintiff would seek to have the Court impose a duty of care on persons inviting others to engage in sexual relationships,” the judge continues. “Plaintiff’s attempts to inveigle the Court into a realm which is best left to church and family is supported by neither reason nor authority. Absent outrageous intentional conduct, resulting in substantial, objective injury — or legislation imposing a standard representing the will of the people — the courts cannot and should not attempt to regulate behavior in this peculiarly private area.”
Dierker concludes by suggesting that “the sexual harassment police seem oblivious to the First Amendment as they eagerly enlist the courts as censors of words and literature in the workplace.”
Dierker granted the doctor’s motion to dismiss the case on both counts but allowed the woman to file an amended petition “restating Count I consistent with this opinion.”
The woman in question had been the patient of a psychiatrist who was transferred to be his secretary and a sexual relationship occurred. So this assclown was a psychiatrist and boss of woman he was sleeping with and then he harassed her to continue the affair.
Why would anyone think his outside writing would affect his positions?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?