Hacker News Reader

Comment by kafkaesq | Hacker News Reader

I was shocked at the casual racism emanating from the bench. The judge explained a “stay away” order to a Hispanic defendant by saying that if the complainant calls and invites you over for “rice and beans,” you cannot go. She lectured some defendants that most young men “with names like yours” have lengthy criminal records by the time they reach a certain age.

Thereby instantly disqualifying herself from the privilege of serving on the bench. Ample grounds for impeachment, by any reasonable standard.

View on HN

Just to give you an idea of how difficult it is to actually impeach a judge, only fifteen(15) Federal judges have been successfully impeached in the entire history of the United States.[1]

1. http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impeachments...

Shouldn't have to be so drastic as impeachment; it would be enough that judges and other staff are watched and their performance reviewed. This judge clearly should get a stern warning that racism will not be tolerated. Repeat offenders should simply be fired. They are employees that have superiors after all.

Nope, federal judges are not "employees that have superiors" they are civil officers of the united states whose appointments are approved by the Senate. Impeachment is the only way to 'fire' a federal judge. I suppose the plus side of this is that the government can't fire them for political reasons or because they don't like their judgements. Without impeachment anyway. A federal judge does not have a 'superior'.

Thanks for that explanation. Sounds completely broken if only 15 were ever impeached (assuming a lot more than 15 were likely bad apples). Even a short clip of obvious racism should result in impeachment as you can't be fit to serve as a judge if you don't consider everyone equal.

Judges should be hard to replace (see e.g Turkey right now) - but peer review based bonuses or some kind of measure to get rid of bad behavior seems like a reasonable compromise.

Uh, I think you have a deep misunderstanding of how the Government is meant to work here. The Judicial is a branch of Government on-par with Legislative and Executive that is intentionally meant to be sovereign from public influence except for limited checks and balances by the other branches. Opinions like yours are the exact reason why.

The idea that anyone who ever utters anything that could possibly be interpreted as being slightly racist should be burned at the stake is just one political fad among many others that have came and went over the years. As well as the Gestapo-like idea that anybody who offers any resistance to the idea that anybody deemed to be racist must be burnt at the stake should also be burnt at the stake. And the primary reason why judges cannot be removed easily is to protect them from political fads exactly like that. If you deem that your favorite fad is "special" somehow, then the next one will be as well, and the next one too, and that protection becomes worthless.

And that quoted statement is not obvious racism. It was condescending and insulting, but not racist, except in the most mild sense. Actually racist would be "I am sentencing you to an extra 5 years because you are Hispanic, and Hispanics cannot control their impulses".

Not obvious racism? Are we talking about this:

> She lectured some defendants that most young men “with names like yours” have lengthy criminal records by the time they reach a certain age.

I think that's pretty obvious racism. By "with names like yours", we agree she means Latinos, right? I think it's racist to say in court that most Latinos have lengthy criminal records, and the judge probably knows it or they wouldn't have used the (totally transparent and pro forma) euphemism "with names like yours."

By "with names like yours", we agree she means Latinos, right?

Well, no. When I read the article the first time, I presumed she was talking about Black non-Hispanic Americans with Africanized names. Re-reading, I see that this wasn't stated either, but I still read "some defendants" as contrasting rather amplifying the previous use of "a Hispanic defendant". It's possible you are right, but it's far from "pretty obvious".

The Bronx is sufficiently multicultural that I'm sure there are groups I've scarcely heard of who have widely held prejudices against groups that I'd never even guess. I think you, and I, and probably everyone who wasn't in that courtroom are reading things into the account based on our own preconceptions. Racism is one explanation, and likely at least partially present, but I don't think there is any way to know how from this short account how much of a role it plays.

For example, what race do you picture the "racist" judge as? Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish? What about the court officers laughing at the "young man" with his pants around his ankles? I don't know, but I wouldn't be startled if both the humiliators and humiliated belt-less defendant were all of African origin, or Spanish speaking, or both.

And what about the "85-pound drug addict who was arrested because she was in a park after hours" or the "pale, slight, and visibly anxious" woman there for a protective order? Is there any reason to presume that judge's lack of sympathy for either of these two was because race? As the old joke goes, does it count as racial prejudice you hate all minorities equally?

So no, it's not "obvious racism", unless we start by assuming that racism is the only reason that one person would mistreat another. I mean, doesn't proof of "racism" at least require showing that the judge treats members of one race better than those of another? Is there any evidence of this in the story? If not, why do we call it "racism" rather than "prejudice", or just "hate"?

Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish?

Not at all.

I mean, doesn't proof of "racism" at least require showing that the judge treats members of one race better than those of another? Is there any evidence of this in the story? If not, why do we call it "racism" rather than "prejudice", or just "hate"?

Whether she's certifiably "racist" or not is a red herring. The point is that she's obviously biased against defendants based on family origin and language background (and incredibly condescending, to boot). Which are both attributes manifestly incompatible with her job description.

  >> Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself
  >> was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish?
  >
  > Not at all.

Could you walk me through that? I don't see how an accusation of "racism" can have meaning unless we care about the races of the parties involved. For example, if I were to declare that it is obvious that the judge acts they way she does because she is "sexist", wouldn't you want to know the sexes of the judge and the defendants before deciding whether the accusation is true? And at least one example of how the judge treated a male differently than a female? Perhaps you feel that "racism" and "prejudice" are synonyms at this point, and that it's pedantic to differentiate them?

  > Whether she's certifiably "racist" or not is a red herring.

Yes, and if it's a red herring --- a false clue designed to distract and mislead the reader --- why should we let the accusation stand just because the subject has other shortcomings? How does this improve the situation for future defendants?

Sure, the judge probably holds racial prejudices, and these probably influence some of her behavior in the courtroom. But I'd wager though that there are many other factors involved, and one of them (economic prejudice, overwork and burn-out, ignorance and stupidity, simple lack of compassion) is playing a larger role, and that a correct diagnosis is the first step to improvement. I'm not excusing the judge's behavior, I'm claiming that putting false blame on racism is a distraction from the real issues (whatever they might be).

Edit: Here's a couple other articles about the author, Judge Shelley Chapman:

http://hlrecord.org/2014/02/feminists-take-on-debt/

http://mashable.com/2016/02/09/bronx-girls-explorers-trial

These don't contradict anything anyone here has said, but may offer additional insight into her views.

> I were to declare that it is obvious that the judge acts they way she does because she is "sexist", wouldn't you want to know the sexes of the judge and the defendants before deciding whether the accusation is true?

Defendants? Yes. Judge? No. The sex of the actor is irrelevant in determining whether their actions demonstrate systematic bias against a particular sex in their judicial decisions.

(There are situations where the sex of the judge might be interesting in discussing the sexism once it was established, but not in determining if it exists.)

Similarly, with "racism", mutatis mutandis.

I carefully avoided saying that it wouldn't be sexism if the sexes were the same. At least, I tried to, although perhaps I edited badly. I started out with a longer example including reference to the US Census's definition of Hispanic as an ethnicity rather than a race and including North African's as White, but decided it was too confusing and ended up "wouldn't you want to know".

(There are situations where the sex of the judge might be interesting in discussing the sexism once it was established, but not in determining if it exists.)

Yes, and not only for discussing, but to have any reasonable chance of working toward a solution. I think the "fix" almost certainly depends on the cause of the prejudice, which I think almost certainly depends on the sexes of the parties.

Similarly, with "racism", mutatis mutandis.

But that's the question, right? What stays the same, and what changes? And in this case, do you think that "racism" is a helpful diagnosis?

> Well, no. When I read the article the first time, I presumed she was talking about Black non-Hispanic Americans with Africanized names.

Okay, still racist.

> For example, what race do you picture the "racist" judge as? Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish?

Not much.

> As the old joke goes, does it count as racial prejudice you hate all minorities equally?

Yes.

One young man’s arraignment was particularly unnerving: The ADA noted that the defendant’s “street name” is “Guns and Butter,” and then proceeded to refer to the young man not as “the defendant” or by his given name, but rather as “Mr. Guns and Butter.” The judge made a thinly veiled attempt to hide her giggles, while the court officers made no attempt whatsoever to subdue their outright laughter.

So I just looked up "Guns and Butter" to try to understand why someone might have this nickname. To my surprise, the phrase is originally a reference to a macroeconomic model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model

  The guns versus butter model is an example of
  a simple production–possibility frontier. It 
  demonstrates the relationship between a nation's
  investment in defense and civilian goods.

Or maybe a 1970's horn-heavy Progressive Rock band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrmPQreXgbA

Or 1980's Australian Power Pop / Political Punk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPsTisG7-JA

And 2000's American String Band Resurgence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCKHbYEDiNg

But I'm guessing this scene from Baby Boy is probably a more likely direct reference, but who really knows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga8o9eepj5s&t=40

This then gets remixed by a number of Hiphop DJ's. I think I like this one best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OboHRT5-Ss

It's even got Youtube parodies at this point, complete with reference to Gangnam Style as an example of "Butter": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXHHlURvYg&t=105

It's also the name of a radical leftist radio show on Pacifica: http://www.gunsandbutter.org/about.htm

I wonder if any of the people giggling in the courtroom knew any of these references, or whether they were just laughing at the guy. I wonder if they would have cared. I wonder if the defendant himself even knew why people called him "Guns and Butter". I hope so.

I didn't refer to the quotes from the article as being that racist, I meant that there are likely examples of times when a judge has acted less than ideally - but not bad enough for impeachment.

Racism isn't a political fad though - it's contrary to the idea that everyone is equal under the law. That is a theme that is at least as central to democracy as the separation between judicial and legislative.

Just like you say the judicial branch must be well protected and no kind of political influence can exist.

This is why peer review could work. If a judge is condescending and insulting something has to go. The protection of the judicial from the legislative is important but not important enough that one can shrug at judges that can't do their jobs.

Who is the 'superior' that can fire a senator or congressperson? A president?

Which isn't to say the system can't be reviewed. Perhaps theoretically we could imagine some system of peer review that would be useful. But it's crucial that judges have political independence and can't get fired for making unpopular rulings or rulings not liked by those in power.

"Bonuses"? Judges don't get bonuses. And I have trouble imagining any system of 'bonuses' for judges that would steer clear of encouraging politically (in any sense of the word) motivated rulings.

Although the judges in this article actually _weren't_ federal judges, were they?

A lot of judges are elected.

Not U.S. Federal judges.

True, but (unless I miss something, stated or implied) possibly the judge under discussion?

Oh I didn't think it'd be easy. I just meant like, morally speaking.

Personally I don't think that snarky comments should be grounds for impeachment. What's important is what's happening, not that the judge says "rice and beans" instead of "sandwiches". Let's keep our priorities straight, lest we get our fill of accomplishment by controlling others' speech instead of improving conduct.

Sure, and what's happening is many many criminal defendents are not getting just due process.

It so happens that there is a correlation (not universal, but a correlation) with race and whether you get fair treatment in court though. I think it actually goes beyond judges just 'not liking' black people or latinos though, it's an issue of the structure of our society, not just bigotry in judges. But those bigoted comments from judges do give a hint that this is certainly not something that has nothing to do with race.

With the information given, I can't see how you reach that conclusion? Being invited for rice and beans is quite common in some cultures, just as being invited for coffee and cake is in others. It is obviously an example the judge thought would make it clear for the person upon whom the restrictions were placed: "This is no longer for either of you to decide - be careful so you don't get set up."

About the names: It could be nicknames, it could be names common in a militant (i.e. political) subculture. There is no information what was meant - only the conclusion that it was racist.

About the physical standards of the building, and the assembly line of verdicts: That is something to fix!

(Also this clumsy confusion of 'pen' for 'pentitentiary' and 'pen' for 'farm animal enclosure' should be corrected with a new sign.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com