Some liberal commentators explicitly tarred Schroeder as a racist while others settled for euphemism and innuendo.
Some progressive commentators are just coming right out and saying it: Judge Bruce Schroeder — the 75-year-old judge presiding over the the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse — is a racist.
As The Nation‘s Elie Mystal — who admitted that “each one” of Schroeder’s decisions “may be individually defensible” — put it, Schroeder is a “biased, racist judge with his Trump-rally cell phone.” At one point on Wednesday, the judge’s ringtone, Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.,” could be heard in the courtroom.
Vanity Fair also set subtlety aside, opting for the headline “The Kyle Rittenhouse Judge Is the Actual Worst.”
Other outlets, however, were less willing to make outright accusations, settling instead for innuendo and euphemisms such as “odd” and “old-school” to describe the public servant of 50 years, who was first appointed by a liberal Democratic governor.
The Washington Post, for example, ended a profile of Schroeder published on Wednesday with a quote from a random Kenosha resident with no legal training, who speculated that “Kyle Rittenhouse is going to get off, they gave the case to the worst judge in town.” Moreover, while the piece states that “Schroeder’s reputation has some in Kenosha worried,” and notes that “Schroeder engaged in several sharp exchanges with Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger,” it includes no descriptions of what spurred those exchanges, or examples that support the allegation of his being the “worst judge in town.”
The article also fails to mention that Schroeder has run uncontested the last three times he’s appeared on the ballot as a candidate for the Kenosha County Circuit Court.
In its promotion of a story on Schroeder, the New York Times highlighted the fact that Schroeder “has acknowledged that some topics raised in pretrial hearings are new to him, and said that until this case, he hadn’t heard of the Proud Boys, which had offered to help Rittenhouse,” despite the fact that the Proud Boys were not involved in the actual shootings themselves. The article similarly criticizes Schroeder for being “unfamiliar with the ‘O.K.’ hand sign as a gesture that has been co-opted by white supremacists.”
The Times piece is also notable for its flawed effort to portray Schroeder as incompetent. It ends by stating that the judge had “improperly allowed evidence” — a letter — to be presented in another murder trial he presided over. In truth, Schroeder had said that the letter could not be used by the prosecution but was overruled by the Wisconsin supreme court. Recently, the state supreme court reversed itself, deciding that Schroeder had been in the right all along.
At CNN, an anonymous quote is used to declare that Schroeder “still operates his courtroom like it’s 1980,” innuendo that goes unexplained.
CNN also raised alarms in response to a supply-chain joke (“I hope the Asian food isn’t coming . . . isn’t on one of those boats from Long Beach Harbor,”) made by Schroeder in the courtroom on Thursday, unambiguously labeling it “inappropriate” in the headline. The text of the article includes assertions that “his remarks were meant to denigrate or minimize Asian Americans” and a quote noting that “old racist stereotypes die hard.” Neither the outlet’s method of deducing Schroeder’s intent, nor the supposed stereotype to which he purportedly referred, is made at all clear.
Tom Nichols, a contributor to The Atlantic, was similarly disturbed by the joke and expressed his doubt that Schroeder would be able to “administer impartial justice” in its wake.
Like everyone else critiquing the remark, Nichols declined to explain how it impugns Schroeder’s character or suggests racial motives.
Schroeder has also come under fire for not allowing those shot by Rittenhouse to be referred to as “victims” since the accuracy of that label is exactly what is at issue in the trial. Notably, he has also ruled that protesters cannot be called “rioters” or “looters” unless there is specific evidence that an individual engaged in those acts.