Given that Judge Martin’s representative denies that he is a Muslim and that I now think he probably did not claim to be a Muslim during the court proceeding, the question arises whether it is still valid to argue, as I did yesterday, that Martin should have recused himself from the case on the ground of judicial bias. Absolutely not. It absolutely is. [ACM - Sorry for the confusion -- writing too fast.] Martin’s status as a Muslim was not the focal point of my bias contention. I’ve just added the following to the post in question:
UPDATE: … This post has been corrected because, after further review, it appears Judge Martin’s reported statement on the audio of the court proceeding, “I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive”, is actually, “F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive.” For further details on the transcription, see this post. I note that I have not retracted my assertion that Judge Martin ”had no business sitting on a case in which he was biased against the complainant.” While there would surely be additional grounds to support a judicial bias claim if Judge Martin were a Muslim, my argument was not based on Martin’s being a Muslim. It was based on Martin’s hyper-sensitivity to Islamic sensibilities, which rendered him receptive to the absurd claim that sharia principles can be a valid defense to a Pennsylvania harassment charge. Though there would be grounds for worry, a judge who was faithful to his responsibilities but who happened to be a Muslim could theoretically sit fairly and impartially on this case. On the other hand, a judge who is an adherent of current American government policy toward Islam — who, for example, sees no conflict between sharia and the federal Constitution, or who thinks fear of Muslim reactionary violence is a good reason to curb the First Amendment — should not have sat on this case, regardless of whether he happened to be a Muslim.
Just so I'm clear (and I'm not really referring to the facts/issues in this case), Mr. McCarthy is arguing that it's improper for a judge to be hypersensitive to Islamic sensibilities -- but in matters concerning women's healthcare and birth control, the judiciary should be hyper-sensitive to Catholic sensibilities? Is that right? That's how 'religious freedom' works?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust so I'm clear (and I'm not really referring to the facts/issues in this case), Mr. McCarthy is arguing that it's improper for a judge to be hypersensitive to Islamic sensibilities -- but in matters concerning women's healthcare and birth control, the judiciary should be hyper-sensitive to Catholic sensibilities? Is that right? That's how 'religious freedom' works?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, you are not clear or logical or rational. Your argument is snark. Demanding that all Americans abide the right of others to have free speech has nothing to do with the government forcing religious institutions to buy products and services that go against their faith.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore irrational hatred, leading inevitably to a stupid inability to hear straight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo thoughts about how to deal with this situation, where double jeopardy will almost certaily rule out any further criminal proceedings in the Pennsylvania state courts.
1. Pennsylvania has a Judicial Conduct Board, which might be interested in a judge's calling a putative crime victim a "doofus" and then trying to keep the putative crime victim from publicizing the judge's remarks.
2. Isn't this a classic case for a Federal civil rights prosecution (of the alleged assailant, of course, not the judge)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK so artists can dip Jesus pictures into urine and get praised and paid by the government while a victim of assault is dressed down by a judge for a Halloween costume?
Judicial activism is the real deal and if we don’t stop it we are hitting the accelerator on the road to tyranny.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr McCarthy:
If the status of the judge as a muslim or not was not the basis of your argument, why did you so prominently note it? To suggest (very disingenously) that muslims are per se incapable of good judicial conduct under the US system of justice?
You also claim that his religious affiliation as a muslim would be additional grounds for judicial bias. Interesting. I'll wait for your strong arguments that any catholic on the bench is improperly biased to hear any suit involving the HHS contraceptive mandate.
Finally, it's absolutely pathetic to blame the judge for not correcting the transcript you used for your indictment. As an experienced prosecutor, I'd assume you'd be especially careful about what you use as factual sources.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI beg to differ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe judge may be biased, but that obscures the greater error: he's incompetent.
McCarthy needs to quit shooting from the hip and get his facts straight before he posts. He does this too often.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis update makes no sense. The decision was a lousy one, and the judge was clearly wrong. Criticize him for that, sure. But where's the evidence of bias? You point to nothing outside the opinion itself that suggests any reason for bias. (You were on stronger ground, though still wrong, when you thought he was a Muslim, since that at least was some extrinsic evidence). You are defining bias so broadly that it could be applied any time a judge makes a bad decision. "Any judge who would decide this wrongly is clearly biased and should have removed himself."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndrew, you are a real class act.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA whole lot of non-Muslims in this country have a bias in favor of Islam sensitivities. This judge is just one of many.
Remember when South Park had their one, solitary Mohammed episode? We heard from a lot of folks who otherwise have stayed silent for YEARS as that show has mocked Jesus Christ on a regular basis.
But America isn't Europe. And all those Bible-thumpers that infuriate the Republican establishment aren't going to silently watch this country go the way of France or England. If our politicians ignore this Islamic double-standard, or worse, ENDORSE it...there will be a political price to pay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou know, I've been in regular attendance in fundamentalist/evangelical Christian churches for more than four decades now, and I have yet to see anybody do anything to a Bible that could possibly be described as "thumping." What is this term supposed to mean and why is it in common use?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know this wasn't key to your point, but I guess I just couldn't let that phrase pass without challenge one more time.
Hi River,
Good question. I was being self-deprecating.
I'm a card-carrying member of the fraternal order of evangelical Bible-thumping pastors.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf he's not a Muslim, he is certainly a fellow-traveler and there are a lot of them out there. We need a name for them, e.g. MIABLOs (Muslim In All But Label Only)? Mark Steyn may be unhappy with that, however. Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.
Wait, I have an idea. Surely there are people at NR who have Grover Norquist on speed-dial. Maybe they could ask him for suggestions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, he is still a terrible judge. His methodology is just flat out wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWeak damage control Andrew.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt does NOT change the bias argument.
A judge should never lecture on sensitivity of religion with regards to the 1st Amendment. He *should* have lectured the attacker about the First Amendment and America's freedom of speech.
The fact he considered an expression of speech against muhammad to exempt from protection under the Constitution, while ignoring the *same* type of expression against the Pope, reveals he does have a bias.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCliffnotes: moron made a mistake, refuses to admit he was wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProfessor Volokh got an email from a Judge Martin supporter: Judge Martin's version of events. Do they square?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse