It's kind of weak sauce to claim that he thought it was sent only to a handful of friends. Is he saying that it is okay to be a racist, sexist jackass so long as it is "private"?

Huh.

But that said, I don't really get this as racist. Sexist and misogynist, yeah, I get that. But the "joke" here is that the President's mother slept around with animals. That's a disgusting punchline but not a racial one, IMO.

I'm probably just tired and dense. Don't bother to explain it to me, cuz ya know a joke is never funny if you have to explain it.

You can say that again, Raicha!

Wow. Don't know what happened there!

Believe me, it is racist. It would only be funny to you if you were racist. I could explain why it is racist, but you've asked not to be told. But I'll give you a hint. What is just a little bit better than having a dog for a father?

A common trope on racist sites like Stormfront and in neo-Nazi propaganda is that a white woman who would have sex with a "subhuman" like a black man would also have sex with dogs. I think it pretty much speaks for itself and even the judge does not deny the email was racist. I'm not sure how much more blatant it could be.

I feel so naive. I completely missed that meaning.

I think I'd like to stay naive.

A factor in aggravation:

He didn't send it from his yahoo from his house.

He didn't even send it from his yahoo on his government-paid computer.

He sent it from his mtd.uscourts.gov (government-paid) account.


Every minority litigant and attorney should shame him by moving for his recusal.

Overhere, THAT (sending it from an offical adddress) would be grounds for a final reprimand before dismissal. Even if you have tenrure for life.

Overhere, civil servants who get dismissed this way lose their right to a state pension. And to the right to go on a pension at 60 (soon to be raised to 62).

Meaning if the guy were 59, he would be on the dole for at least five years and then get a minimal pension as if he had contributed as a self-employed person.

I'll be in my bunk.

Cebull's self-tattle letter to the 9th. (The 9th's judicial misconduct guidelines.)

Cebull's apology to Obama.

His letter to our President needs to be seen in its entirety:


I especially love the highlighted portion, following about as "de minimis" an apology as he could possibly make. No, Judge Cebull, I honestly don't know what else you could do either.

This might be illustrative on the topic of impeaching a judge. Be careful what you wish for.

Alcee Hastings

The Senate screwed up when it convicted the impeached Hastings. It did not impose the political death penalty on him.

As for the racist judge, one thing he could do is take classes in racial sensitivity somewhere. Seminars are held all the time all over the country. If the judge were the least bit sincere he would have enrolled. By not doing so, and saying he doesn't know what else he can do, he is sticking his middle finger up to the president.

At this point I think he should be impeached, convicted and removed from the bench.

I agree, but it ain't gonna happen. The second-best thing would be for the Ninth Circuit to do the judicial equivalent of exiling him to Devil's Island. At the very least, they should reverse as an abuse of discretion any denials of motions to recuse him by minority defendants who manifestly have a reasonable fear they will not have a fair hearing before a virulent racist.

Zorba -- Are you a judge or a lawyer?

Racists have no honor. They are hollow people filled with hatred. This bastard will not retire.

This might be as good a time as any to ask the Fogbow attorneys about:

Article III Section 1
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Senators would be hard pressed to defend Judge Cebull's recent behavior as good (though I have no doubt some could).

That phrase has generally been interpreted to mean life tenure, period. Life tenure is constitutionally indispensable to there being a truly independent judiciary. If judges have to be elected or can be thrown off the bench for making unpopular decisions, we do not have a true republic. We could never have had a Brown v. Board of Education with a rule that any time a judge is a dick, he's out of there, because people would disagree about what constitutes being a dick.

That aside, federal judges are rightly held to high standards of conduct, befitting the great degree of trust that is reflected by life tenure. At the very least, this idiot needs to be shamed. To call his pathetic and disgusting behavior a blot on his escutcheon is to minimize it. He has not, so far, done anything whatsoever that reflects a repudiation of his racist beliefs.

So far as I can tell, he is an unrepentant racist, before whom citizens cannot expect an impartial hearing.

Loh, I agree that federal judges need to have lifetime appointments to make the judiciary function as the founding fathers envisioned. My question was meant to be a request for IAAL opinions on the two different conditions for impeachment, conviction and removal of the President (or Vice President plus all civil officers of the United States) versus federal judges.

Article II Section 4 lists "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" as cause for removal from office (upon conviction) for the President. Article III Section 1 lists only "during good behavior" for federal judges. The Article III requirement seems to me to be a lessor standard.

Removing a judge from the bench because one or more of his decisions are unpopular would not qualify to me. But then, I remember Congressman Gerald Ford's definition of what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors. However when a judge's action(s) or statement(s) indicate "citizens cannot expect an impartial hearing", Congress has an obligation to investigate.

There is a minority view that this is the case, and more specifically, that impeachment is not the only avenue for removal of a federal judge. However, the majority view is that impeachment is the only process for removal. There's a somewhat related debate as to what constitues "high crimes and misdemeanors" for purposes of impeachment, which remains unresolved but is probably, from a realistic standpoint, whatever the Senate finds appropriate.

I'm not sure where exactly to draw the line for impeachment (or some other removal process), but this judge's conduct is probably not even near it.

Democrats seek hearing into judge's Obama email





http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162- ... ama-email/




http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 53397914/1


Personally, I don't think anything is going to happen.

I don't understand. Hiz Dizzhonor is at retirement age isn't he? Why doesn't he just retire to go fly fishing?

Then again he loves hiz clout and prestige doesn't he? And he doesn't want to retire until the country re-elects a conservative president who can safely replace him on the bench.