Quick Identification Guide

[unixronin]

A quick-reference identification guide for those unclear on the concepts:

Tea party

Deranged killer

Any questions?

---

I do, actually, have a related question from the BBC article sourcing the Loughner photo above:

When asked, [Loughner] said he understood that he could get life in prison or the death penalty for allegedly killing federal Judge John Roll on Saturday in Tucson, Arizona.

Mr Loughner was charged with five crimes - the attempted assassination of a member of Congress, the first degree murder of two federal employees and the attempted murder of two federal employees.

Not even a mention, it appears, of the nine-year-old girl he also killed, or the dozen or more people wounded.

So, explain something to me here.  Why should it be that the murder of a Federal employee is a distinct, and more serious, crime from the murder of anyone else?  No personal disrespect to Judge Roll, but ... does their shit magically stop stinking when they get a Federal appointment, or something?¹

More to the point, are the rest of us second-class citizens who don't matter as much or have less rights?²  Because if we are, there's something very badly wrong.  This is the United States of America.  We're not supposed to have an aristocracy.

"All pigs are equal, only some are more equal than others."

Photo links courtesy of writerspleasure

[1] Not singling out judges here; I'm asking this question about all Federal employees, appointees or elected officials.  They are not better than us; they are "us" ... or they're supposed to be.  Too many appear to forget that.

[2] Yes, this is a rhetorical question. Yes, I'm quite well aware of the answer. Are you?

Comments

[ithildae]

Isn't that part of his commission? The need to stay reticent about public policy? If I have heard it correctly, that is a lifetime commission, it does not end with retirement.

[robhansen]

It’s part of his canons of ethics, but not part of his Constitutional duties. Judges are governed by complex and contradictory sets of canons promulgated by different groups: the American Bar Association has its ethical standards for judges, the Judiciary has its own ethical standards for judges, Congress has enacted ethical standards for judges, and so on.

Staying reticent about public policy is a Congressional requirement on the Judiciary, but it is unclear whether this is legally enforceable. After all, the only discipline Congress can issue to a federal judge is impeachment, which is only authorized for high crimes: writing a scathing newspaper editorial doesn’t rise to that level.

Other interesting Constitutional questions come into play. For instance, it is beyond question that I have a First Amendment right to tell other people about my moral and political views, and what events in my life helped shape those. That’s exactly the conduct the First Amendment exists to protect. So I would be entirely within my rights to say, “I believe this, because when I was a kid my dad explained it to me as…” Ought I be constrained by his canons of ethics, despite the fact I am not a jurist, did not ask to be a jurist, and have never volunteered to be placed under them?

Hence, Dad and I have a gentlemen’s agreement with respect to his political and moral views. He shares them freely with me, and I agree to be circumspect and responsible with what I say. It has worked out well for us so far. :)

[ithildae]

It sounds like you have a neat relationship with your dad.

I have a friend that is a retired state judge, he has to attend regular training and policy update seminars.

It would not be the first time the guidelines and rules are contradictory and [possibly] unenforceable. Still, the goal is reasonable, a judiciary with the appearance of lack of bias.

(Oddly enough, I have heard of your dad. I live within the 8th circuit.)