I don't know how long this article will be available online, but it is incredibly interesting. Judge Davis is a first term Republican (yes, our judges run in party races...ugh) judge here in Bryan College Station. He is a devout Christian. In fact, he has been known to read the Bible to prospective jurors instead of kicking them loose when there are no cases to be heard that day -- earning him the ire of many residents Christian and non-Christian alike.
But that's not what he's being censured for. He thinks it is. Or rather, he would like voters to think that's what this is all about. If you read the article, you'll see that he's basically a very petty man who saw a chance to get back at a prosecuting attorney he'd crossed swords with when he was a defense attorney. He took a problem to the public (first in open court and then to the media) rather than going through accepted channels or even giving the attorney's boss a chance to do anything about it. THEN, when things didn't go his way, he wrote a memo laced with Biblical references to tell off the bosses for not backing him.
So, he says, everyone is reacting to his faith.
I'm not sure how the primary system works in TX, but as I haven't declared a party, I may not get to vote in the primary, which is where the judges' race will be -- The Republican primary is the only one in which judges are running, so the winner there decides the issue.
Anyway, I just wondered if we're seeing something here that is the equivalent of "playing the race card" we've heard so much about in various contentious situations that also happen to involve minority members as participants.
This is NOT to say that there aren't legitimate complaints that religious and minority members can raise in this country. Far from it. I'm more wondering if we are now seeing a band-wagon effect where some people feel like they can pull out the "faith" card to rally support for their just plain crummy behavior.
Sure seems like that's what THIS guy is doing.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
This guy is using his religion to justify his behavior. I'm a Christian, and I would never do what this bozo is doing.
Bob, this reminds me of BannaOJ's thread about the letters from her grandmother.
Many horrible things have been done in the name of religion. The Inquisition, The attacks on The World Trade Center, etc. This guy is giving Christians a bad name.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
quote: Davis said that while the words are offensive, and he doesn't’t attempt to justify them, most people wouldn't’t equate them to the common definition of profane.
What definition is he talking about?
Profane
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred. 2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music. 3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated. 4. Vulgar; coarse.
They didn't say he was swearing or cussing. I'm not sure I misinterpreted what he said. It was profane. And if he is hanging his hat on the fact that he didn't use the f-word, I have to laugh. First he claims that he should be sanctioned for his actions because he didn't act with "the requisite intent to satisfy the 'willful violation' standard," then he uses the word fornicate, when his "intent" was the f-word. What a nincompoop. (nincompoop-n. A silly, foolish, or stupid person.)
My favorite excerpts.
"Because of you and your assistant, my work is not only a burden. It is drudgery. I look out over the courtroom and see a prosecutor whom I do not trust, whom I believe is treacherous, whom I believe probably has the compassion of an Auschwitz camp guard, and whom I believe would do anything to get her way.(Emphasis added.)" (I guess they didn't convey the emphasis he added. I will. whom I believe probably has the compassion of an Auschwitz camp guard)
"Ms. Cass, I conclude that you have engaged in conduct that is sneaky, surrepitious, [sic] and was deliberately calculated to undermine this Court’s intention with respect to this defendant, Joe Friday Rodriguez, Jr.
You are not welcome in the Court. You are excused. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact Mr. Clark is present. Mr. Clark, I do not know who will take over prosecution of this case but I want whoever it is who takes it over to be fully aware I tend to fully enforce the bond conditions that I imposed on Mr. Rodriguez."
How does one convey a spelling error in open court? Is this Justice merely using the court reporter's incorrect spelling? It makes it seem like the Judge is the one who made the error, till you realize that he was saying this out loud in open court.
quote: Judge Davis continued to assert to this special court that because the letter was a private expression of his religious views, it is not sanctionable. We find that the letter did not principally address spiritual and personal matters between friends but was focused almost entirely on the professional relationship between the 272nd district court and the district attorney’s office. Judge Davis cannot shield his actions from sanction by couching his attack on Bill Turner and Laura Cass in religious terms. The terms Judge Davis used to “rebuke” the district attorney shock the conscience. Such profane language, distasteful and inappropriate for a judge to use in any professional relationship, does not promote public regard for the judiciary. Judge Davis has cloaked his rebuke of the district attorney in theological terms, but he is being sanctioned not for his religious beliefs but for his failure to live up to the ethical standards of conduct required of a judge. In coming to our conclusion, we disregard all of the inquires into the judge’s religious beliefs and measure his behavior solely by the standards of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
I think they said it rather well. The reporter should have included this in the article, but I suppose if he did that, the whole "Religious Persecution?" section wouldn't have caused people to be outraged. A judge suffering religious persecution? Outrageous. I need to buy that newspaper and read that article.
I wonder what would happen if defendents appearing before this judge simply asserted that they refused to have him hear their case.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I also have to wonder how effective this guy was as a defense attorney -- his former occupation. I mean, was he prone to cite Scripture as the basis for his client's innocence? Would he be able to defend someone he knew to be guilty? Would admit the client that he couldn't defend them because of their guilt?