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.
TBogg put it succinctly
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?
ArchPundit