Sanders Admits to Being the Fed Soc Heckler:
Justice Sanders' non-denial no-comment was a rather strange response to the simple question of whether he had screamed "TYRANT!" at the Federalist Society dinner, but now he has admitted that he was in fact the yeller in question.
Thanks to James Taranto for the link.
UPDATE: Justice Sanders has issued a statement about the events, via Howard.
Sanders told The Seattle Times that he'd simply reached the point where he couldn't remain silent.I guess that's the problem with screaming at the top of your lungs in front of 2,000 people (several hundred of whom know who you are) at a speech covered by the national press: People kinda notice.
"Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine there would be any mention of this in the press," he said. "But here we are."
Thanks to James Taranto for the link.
UPDATE: Justice Sanders has issued a statement about the events, via Howard.
Oh, I'll admit he disgraced himself. But his profession? Judges in general are slime, especially Supreme Court judges. They're worse than politicians because they're unaccountable. I don't think what this guy did in this instance is worse than your typical Brennan opinion. They're both ridiculous.
Unfortunately, it really takes a lot these days for a judge to disgrace himself. The bar is far too low.
I don't approve of what Sanders did, but lets not blow it out of proportion. He has libertarian (which is synonym for crank) leanings, with somewhat of a reputation of speaking before he thinks. Although his opinions are pretty well thought out. And he probably had too much to drink, so he embarrassed himself at a social occasion. He'll get over it, and so should we.
Of course, I should stress that no one thinks this is a big deal. But there is an imperfect correlation between a big deal and a pretty fascinating story.
Meh. Impeach him anyway, just to scare the others.
Everyone at the event, sure. But no one outside of the event would have considered it particularly newsworthy.
As an aside, when I was sworn into the Illinois Bar, there was a very similar incident at the swearing-in ceremony where one of the speakers began slurring his speech and suddenly collapsed at the podium during his speech. The comments on the latest incident seemed hauntingly familiar ("we thought all those long pauses were just for emphasis..."). Fortunately, like Judge Mukasey, our speaker turned out unharmed as well.
By the way, you guys are really missing a golden opportunity to tout this Justice Sanders as living proof of the broad intellectual diversity which allegedly exists within the Federalist Society.
"Frankly, everybody in the room was applauding or sometimes laughing, and I thought, 'I've got to stand up and say something.' And I did," Sanders told The Seattle Times Tuesday. "I stood up and said, 'Tyrant,' then I sat down again, then I left."
I sympathize with the sentiment, but some feelings really are better kept to oneself, or else expressed in a useful manner. Perhaps Judge Sanders needs to comment on blogs more.
I hope those who know my jurisprudence will agree that to truly love the Constitution is to uphold it, to speak out for it, not just in times of peace and prosperity, but also in times of chaos and crisis.
Oh really? To truly love the Constitution is to uphold it? Who would've thought? And also to speak out for it? Wow! He's totally convinced me!
Yelling "TYRANT" sure does that, doesn't it? That's "truly loving the Constitution."
Yeah, I'm sure of it now. Impeach him.
Apparently such people as might have felt the urge realized they risked their lives.
It's good to know that risking embarrassment is an equally valid justification for not speaking truth to power.
Paging Admiral Byng!
Now, if he'd waited until he collapsed and yelled "Sic semper tyrannis!" that would have been in poor taste. Funny, but in poor taste.
I'm ambivalent about outbursts such as Sanders', largely because if the roles were reversed, a lot of people here would probably be taking a different view of things. (Think Joe the Plumber here. And that wasn't even a disruptive outburst.)
Don't you take your collapsing Attorney General as you find him?
Congratulate him for making an opportunity.
No one stood up and called Hitler or Stalin tyrants at public gatherings. At least not after a while.
Apparently such people as might have felt the urge realized they risked their lives.
It's good to know that risking embarrassment is an equally valid justification for not speaking truth to power.
"The truth"?
Didn't Hitler or Stalin--maybe both--just have their advance team instruct local law enforcement to deny entry to anyone wearing apparel or buttons supporting the other candidate? Problem solved.
Not them? I could have sworn. . . .
The 14th amendment applies to all "persons," and people detained in Gitmo are not on the "battlefield."
The issue is precisely *whether* the detained persons are "combatants" or not. To assume as much would beg the question.
Many a true word spoken in jest, perhaps: Judges are used to filing a dissent when they disagree, rather than keeping their peace.
That is indeed the takeaway from all of this. Let this be a lesson to us all.
Innocent prisoners of the U.S. Global War on Terror never have a nice day.
This seems an extremely broad reading of the constitution. If not, it was probably a due process violation to bomb German factories in 1943.
To the extent that Gitmo detainees are non-citizens detained outside the US, their treatment seems to be within the President's war powers and outside of constitutional protections for criminals. Incidentally, I'm not suggesting we *should* send our armies around the globe capturing people - just that the constitution doesn't prohibit it.
And thus we have a policy choice to make - not a constitutional issue to address.
Absolutely right. Our Constitution established a limited government of restricted and defined powers, circumscribed by an indefinite sea of individual rights, delegated to act only within the strict limits of the rule of law, able to send our armies throughout the globe...a minimal nightwatchman state capable of policing the entire world.
Well sure, which is why the Supreme Court's decision was premised on a finding that detention at Gitmo is precisely akin to detention within the territorial borders of the US, as opposed to detention in camps at or near the battlefield.
If the detainees would have the right of habeas corpus if they were brought inside the US, you can't deny them that right simply by holding them a few miles outside the border, any more than we could keep them on a prison ship floating just off California. One can reasonably believe that denying habeas corpus in such a situation would make a mockery of the right.
As I understood it, the Supreme Court held that habeas corpus was a power of the judiciary and not a right of the detainees. Eliminating habeas corpus violated the separation of powers.
Also, has anybody appeared in front of him in oral argument? His presence on the bench should be reduced after this. Does he tolerate interuptions in oral argument?
Are they slime when appointed, are do they get that way on the bench? If the former, how do otherwise partisan enemies in the other branches manage to agree on this one quality in selecting nominees of every ideological stripe? If it's the latter, why would decent people accept an appointment that signals their descent into depravity? Or are they blind to this obvious (to you) phenomenon? And how clueless were the founders for not anticipating this cancer on the Republic?
That said, Sanders is obviously controlled by his emotions, not by reason. Makes you wonder if he follows the law in his courtroom, or rules based on his feeling on the issues.
Because he acted like an ass? I'm sure he'd be willing to entertain any and all rationalizations and justifications if someone in his courtroom did the same to him.
Tyrant does indeed seem like the wrong word to apply, but it is not at all clear that the Bush administration believes in the rule of law. As just one example, look at the signing statements which even Ashcroft cannot defend (I heard him on this point in a question and answer period after a speech at Wabash College.)
Jay Phillps: As you doubtless know, the Allies bombed not only German factories but lots of German civilians in World War II. The horrible shame was that the bombing effort was not directed enough at the factories, railroads, and oil depots.
David Broder can look at 7 years of Bush administration lawbreaking and say, "We shouldn't prosecute people over policy differences". This judge stomps out of a speech by a political hack, and it's impeachable. It's official - the GOP noise machine is absolutely insane.
I'll tell you what - let's eliminate from our law anything that was written by or inspired by anyone who ever engaged in an outburst in a public place over a political issue. Then we can review what's left.
If he is uncourteous to others, he should have no expectation of having courtesy shown to him even in his courtroom (I know, this must be heresy to the lawyers here). Perhaps the judge feels that it's appropriate to behave this way when you feel vehemently about an issue, but I'd bet he wouldn't tolerate it if it was directed at him.
Impeachment? A YEAR of community service? I get the strong feeling some of you just don't like it that the guy attacked your buddy. Maybe you should push for charges of assault! Mukasey did collapse after he shouted at him, after all.
Since I have not signed the Geneva conventions, I'll now go into hiding.
I'd just settle for mocking boorish behavior by someone you would think would know better. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was growing up I was taught how to behave in public. Behaving the way he did was frowned upon. But I guess as long as you're speaking truth to power (a la Code Pink; they sure are a bunch of real classy folks, eh?) it's all good.
If this is true, then I want every divorced judge removed from the bench immediately.
I guarantee you that 99% of divorced judges were, at some point in their marriages, discourteous to their spouses. I bet some of them even raised their voices during disagreements, or called them unpleasant names! Having done that once themselves, they should have no expectation of courtesy in their courtrooms.
Listen to yourselves.
Look, I realize this is a blog comment thread, and isn't actually expected to make sense, but are you nuts? People detained under any circumstances aren't "on the battlefield."
Try to remember what the Laws of War are for: we take and hold prisoners for the duration because releasing them tends to put them back on the battlefield; it's a humanitarian thing. Without it, the only way to remove them from battle is to kill them. Similarly, the rule about people fighting without a distinguishing uniform, or concealing themselves in the civilian population, is so you can tell them from the population; without it, again, a military has to consider anyone big enough to carry a grande a potential adversary.
I thought the calls for impeachment were based not on the idea that the judge's rudeness was criminal or even gravely serious, but on a facial interpretation of the phrase "good behavior".
In other words, instead of a call to apply a heavy-handed remedy to this little outburst, the idea seems to be a call to reduce impeachment from a heavy-handed technique to one that is less so.
That's not true, actually. Prisoners can be detained on the battlefield, i.e., not sent back behind the lines. Where those prisoners appear to've committed capital violations of the laws of war, a "drumhead" court martial and execution may take place. The recent SCOTUS decisions expressly recognize this possibility.
In the present case, we have prisoners, some of whom for instance were rounded up by Afghan warlords and presented to us as "Qaeda supporters" in exchange for cash bounties. I.e., "we" didn't detain them on any "battlefield."
Similarly, the rule about people fighting without a distinguishing uniform, or concealing themselves in the civilian population, is so you can tell them from the population; without it, again, a military has to consider anyone big enough to carry a grande a potential adversary.
On that logic, an unarmed man is a "potential adversary" who can be detained in Gitmo for the rest of his life. Anyone who supported such an action would deserve to have Justice Sanders yelling "Tyrant!" at him 20 times a day.
In Afghanistan in 2001-02, carrying an AK-47 out of uniform (and what "uniform" did the Taliban affect?) could make one an enemy combatant ... or it could just be a healthy gesture of self-preservation.
I would argue that it's actually the reverse: the laws of war are designed to protect legitimate soldiers from criminal prosecutions for murder, arson, etc. And that if one is not a legitimate soldier, one is not entitled to the protection of the laws of war, but is subject to being treated like a common criminal, up to and including being executed if convicted of crimes.
But that makes the two choices "protected POW" and "criminal suspect". There's no third choice "person the executive branch can do with as it pleases". If you're not a POW, you should be either a criminal suspect in the civilian court system, a criminal suspect under military justice in an area under military authority, or a criminal suspect turned over to the government of the area where you committed your crime.
I don’t know if he’s expected to behave as if he were in a courtroom but a judge subject to judicial canons is going to be held to a higher standard of behavior in his public conduct than a layperson. Possibly his behavior might subject him to some sort of discipline (or not, I don’t have the relevant canons handy). I don’t believe that impeachment requires a violation of the canons so yes, I think he could be impeached but I doubt he’d actually be removed.
He's really just a state-court judge. What can you expect?
The private citizen is a closer call. He is a longtime member of this group but disapproved of the speech and was upset by the clapping and laughing at the speech. Apparently, everyone who approved of the speech was allowed to interrupt the speech to show their approval. He, on the other hand, did not approve and showed it.
Perhaps he sould have published his views in a different way - assuming no state law claims that will come before him are implicated.
2) If #1 is true, is it improper to call a tyrant a tyrant to his face?
Look, I realize this is a blog comment thread, and isn't actually expected to make sense, but are you nuts? People detained under any circumstances aren't "on the battlefield."
That's not true, actually. Prisoners can be detained on the battlefield, i.e., not sent back behind the lines. Where those prisoners appear to've committed capital violations of the laws of war, a "drumhead" court martial and execution may take place. The recent SCOTUS decisions expressly recognize this possibility.
In the present case, we have prisoners, some of whom for instance were rounded up by Afghan warlords and presented to us as "Qaeda supporters" in exchange for cash bounties. I.e., "we" didn't detain them on any "battlefield."
This problem is why the conservatives have sought to define the "battlefield" as everywhere. In the meantime, Mr. Hamdan is in Yemen and we are no more at risk than before he was "captured".
Honest question: how far do the rules of judicial conduct go? If a judge goes to a ball game and shouts 'The ref needs a seeing eye dog'? Is a political comment like this one considered better or worse than that?
Oh wait, I think he did.
I wonder what DangerMouse thinks of Scalia's dissent in Hamdi....
actually no. the terrorists have defined it that way by their method of fighting and ignoring any and all rules of war.
However, you have to admit that there is no way you can possibly argue that Padilla should not have been initially granted habeas. Surely someone detained by civil authorities in the US is not captured on the battlefield..... "The Battlefield" is not everywhere and needs to be defined as active theaters of operations relating to US military involvement. And if I get arrested for helping my son look up pictures of trains on Google in violation of their terms of service, the executive can't just claim I am a terrorist and deny me all rights of due process....
i would agree that padilla was not arrested on the (ever expansive) battlefield. we are in agreement on that.
i don't even grok your second point. you may disagree with the powers claimed during the war on terrorism, but the whole point with the GWOT is that "it's a war thang, NOT a crime thang"
the TOS thang is certainly a crime thang, except it's NOT a crime imo but you get my point.
I am glad we are in agreement regarding the Padilla case. My reading of the attempt to define the battlefield as everywhere would be defined by that case.
Guantanimo Bay detainees captured in Afghanistan are pretty clearly captured on the field of battle by any reasonable modern definition--they were captured by US military personnel in active operations in a defined area (and yes, that area has a penumbra). Trying to argue otherwise would suggest that there are no battlefields anymore.
I define the battlefield as wherever the military is doing battle. I don't think it would apply to CIA-abductions of terrorists in Italy, for example. Calling that a "battlefield" seems to my mind to be a stretch.
If people are in favor of giving the government discretion in the Padilla case because the battlefield is everywhere than *anyone* can be detained indefinitely just because the government says that person is a terrorist. Arbitrary arrest on something like ToS violations makes that easier.
i don't think that's the argument they were making in padilla.
you are misstating it. padilla was arrested AFTER traveling to afghanistan, iraq, etc. and was intiially held as a MATERIAL WITNESS, via material witness warrant. it had nothing to do with him being on a battlefield AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST or not.
fwiw, this was in may of 2002, iirc, and before we even WENT TO WAR with iraq, iirc.
then, when the issue of his being detained STILL on the warrant came up, bush said he was an "Unlawful enemy combatant". THAT was the issue, NOT the battlefield thang.
you are misrepresenting the case as i understand it.
the issue was detention of unlawful enemy combatants, NOT the expansion of the definition of "battlefield"
he was arrested in chicago iirc, and nobody (at least not bush et al) were claiming he was arrested "on the battlefield"
The issue was Bush using the authorization to use military force to declare he had the right to hold Padilla indefinitely without charges. That presumes the idea that Padilla was captured somehow through military force or at least on a battlefield.
cmon man. don't backpedal. you've been intellectually honest up to this point. you claimed (look back a few posts) that the issue in padilla was that it was a "battlefield is everywhere" case. it WASN'T
it was, in fact, quite the opposite. he was arrested on US Soil (initially pursuant to a WARRANT), and NO claim was made he was on ANY sort of battlefield when he was arrested.
you are now hedging and backpedaling what you previously claimed and saying he was captured "somehow through military force or at least on a battlefield" which is (fwiw) still wrong, although also a backpedal.
he was arrested pursuant to a MATERIAL WITNESS WARRANT.
later... he was declared an UEC. he was never captured through military force, or near a battlefield (south chicago aside)...
just admit you were wrong. this was NOT an "expansive battlefield" case. this was a UEC case. *that* was *the* issue here, it had nothning to do with authority to arrest people on the battlefield such as many (most) others who were detained at guantanamo.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.