Here's part of the story, in case you missed it.
Richard Sanders, a justice on the Washington State Supreme Court, has never been one to shy from controversy or blunt language. And last week, as he sat at a Federalist Society dinner and listened to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Sanders reached his tipping point.
After listening to Mukasey defend the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies — its detainment practices at Guantánamo Bay, its interpretation of the Geneva Conventions' reach — Sanders stood and shouted "Tyrant! You are a tyrant!"
"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."
Here's the part of the story that you will not see in the Seattle Times. Justice Sanders first refused to admit that he was the heckler, and then tried to justify his childish outburst, claiming, absurdly, that he was not a heckler because he only yelled once.
That's the behavior of a man who is ashamed of what he did — but not quite ready to admit that he was wrong to do it. Parents of small children and adolescents will be familiar with the pattern, first a refusal to admit bad behavior, and then an attempt to minimize and justify the behavior. It is probably too late for Justice Sanders to grow up, but he should try, anyway.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Note that the Seattle Times reporter, Ken Armstrong, did not bother to get a reaction from one of Sanders' critics.
Full disclosure: I have voted for Justice Sanders in the past, and might vote for him again — depending, of course, on his opponent.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 26, 2008 06:24 AM | Email ThisMukasey was spewing, and Sanders did us all a great favor by calling him out.
Not the most suave and debonair in execution, but the message is right, and who hasn't been listening to foul spew, and at least thought, if not verbalized, that it was.
Those who give up liberty and freedom for safety,have none of either.
The Geezer has spaketh.
Posted by: The Geezer on November 26, 2008 07:13 AMFertile imagination on my part? More than likely, but still possible. I have too much respect for Sanders to throw him under the bus just yet. He has been a great stabilizing force on the Supremes in the face of a super majority of liberal judges. That is, till lately, where the constitutionalists have been elected.
Posted by: swatter on November 26, 2008 07:36 AMSanders needs to resign. And right fricking now.
His outburst was childish, leftist (therefore moronic) and stupid enough; his failure to immediately take credit for his idiocy is dishonorable and even more inexcusable than the outburst itself.
It's time to go, Mr. Sanders. It's bad enough that we allow those who break our laws that we're sworn to uphold to continue to stay on the bench, ala Bobbi "Bourbon" Bridges; but this type of dishonorable behavior that has resulted in others who want to hold him accountable being attacked means he has to go.
Moron. And I used to respect and admire you.
Posted by: Hinton on November 26, 2008 07:43 AMKind of reminds me of "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", yes?
Posted by: Michele on November 26, 2008 08:26 AMIf you really believed in fundamental rights, then you would agree that everyone has them. If not, then you are a hypocrite.
Posted by: fred on November 26, 2008 08:46 AMFrom a legal perspective- I GET the connundrum of gitmo.
However risking American lives to win popularity in the ethical brothels of Europe or the United Nations is not a fair trade.
Something as amoral as gitmo would be a gold star acheivement to any country criticizing the United States.
The rest of the world could take a lesson from our position and management of it.
Posted by: Andy on November 26, 2008 09:14 AMTo detain people without trials indefinitely, is the definition of everything unamerican. I'm not a terrorist apologist either - Give them a trial, prove them guilty, then I don't really care what you do to them. The problem is that they weren't given their due process, and it sets a precedent where any one of us could be called a terrorist by an Obama administration because we own firearms, and just disappear without any trial.
Justice must apply to all equally, and we must make sure that we follow the process, or order of actions, properly. Prove them guilty fairly, then fry 'em!
For those of you who say they don't deserve a fair chance... well that comment is made under the assumption of guilt, which hasn't been proven.
For those of you who say that the constitution doesn't apply to them, it doesn't apply to you or me either. It applies to the federal government and by incorporation in some cases, it applies to lower government as well. It is a limit on the power of these governments to take certain actions. It does not grant you or me rights, it ONLY limits the power of the government, for these rights are inherent and unalienable to being a human.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on November 26, 2008 09:32 AMNo one here suggests that Justice Sanders doesn't have the right to disagree with these or any other policies.
But his playground outburst was inapproriate at best. His failure to "own" that outburst was the act of a weasel, and causes me much more heartburn than the act itself.
If you're "proud" enough to act in such a moronic manner for all of these lofty principles, then you should also be right out front of it and immediately take full and complete responsibility for it.
Failure to do so speaks to a different motive. And that's the issue here, no matter the policy or speaker in question.
Justice Sanders knew who the speaker was going to be. He had at least a notion of what the speaker was going to say. He SHOULD have made the decision not to go, rather than acting like an idiot in such a disgraceful way. That's what moronic leftists are for.
If he wants to act like one of the Code Pink Cretins, he needs to resign and go join them.
Otherwise, unless he is prepared to receive the same type of treatment whenever he makes an appearance or speech, then he should just STFU and sit down.
Posted by: Hinton on November 26, 2008 09:45 AMThere is a time and a place to express your disagreements. I'd hardly consider a sitting Washington State Supreme Court Justice shouting at the speaker at a dinner to be that time or place.
And if he was so right and noble in his indignation, why did he hum, haw, evade and parse words when confronted about it?
Grow. Up.
Posted by: jimg on November 26, 2008 09:46 AM... as I was typing essentially the same thing
Posted by: jimg on November 26, 2008 09:50 AMSanders is a constitutionalist. Period. We need more constitutionalists on the bench. If it ain't in the constitution and people want it there, then the legislature needs to pass a law.
If it is a bad law, then the legislature needs to fix it. Not the judges.
I mean you guys are calling for the head of a good judge over a minor comment. Think about it.
Posted by: swatter on November 26, 2008 11:15 AMSanders is a great hero.
Mukasey has not blamed Sanders for his own fainting and his supporters better hope he doesn't. How would Mukasey's health hold up if someone held him in a hole somewhere and didn't let him communicate with anyone for 6 years, and never told him what he'd done wrong. He better not give us the whiff of a guy who can't take his own medicine.
This will wake up a lot of centrists and liberals to the fact that conservatives aren't all in lockstep with the war-mongering, constitution-ignoring looters currently still in control of the federal government.
The idea that there is a wrong time to oppose tyranny (as long as that opposition is expressed non-violently, which it was) is just a covert way of saying someone doesn't mind tyranny.
Way to go Richard Sanders!
Thanks all,
New Left Conservative #1
And most important, he is a constitutionalist.
Posted by: swatter on November 26, 2008 11:50 AMIf anything... it appears the man has the power to make bad AG fall to the ground. I say we get him in the federal supreme court asap!
Posted by: Lysander on November 26, 2008 12:10 PMSomething tells me Mr. Sanders would disagree with this assessment.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 26, 2008 12:12 PMBut he does not have a right to be a jerk in public any more than you or I. And once having been a jerk under what some totally whacked types refer to as "heroic" circumstances, he then doesn't have the right to IMMEDIATELY avoid accepting responsibility for his actions.
That some moron would call Sanders a "hero" for being an obnoxious idiot and then attempting to cover that idiocy up by refusing to take responsibility for his stupidity shows either a lack of reading comprehension as to what the word "hero" really means, or a level of BDS that requires hospitalization.
There are many more and effective things that Justice Sander COULD have done to make his point. acting out like a drunken idiot wasn't one of them.
And if, as he and those supporting this idiocy assert, that he was acting on some sort of principle... then why didn't he say so in the beginning, instead of hemming and hawing and tap dancing around it?
If it was a matter of principle or honor, Justice Sanders would have been all over it. Instead, he whined and sniveled and complained as if that somehow excused his moronic, despicable conduct.
And he needs to resign.
I don't want a drunk (Bridges) on the Supreme Court, and I don't want a weasel, either.
Posted by: Hinton on November 26, 2008 12:28 PMAnd the same goes for all the noble and self-sacrificing protesters to whom our MSM provides lavish coverage and carefully framed quotes, when they block traffic, or handcuff themselves together to block doors, or shout down Congressional hearings, or otherwise impede the processes of civilization.
And by comparison, Sanders, with a mere few seconds of outburst, is nothing in comparison with the hours-long stage productions of the well-funded 'protesters' who hog the evening news.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 26, 2008 01:08 PMI mean, the guy is a Supreme Court Justice. Can't he hold his water until the speech is over? I can understand not agreeing with the speaker or the administration but can't he figure some other way to make his views known? This isn't 1860 it's the friggin' 21st century.
Where are the adults anyway?
Posted by: G Jiggy on November 26, 2008 01:12 PMIt's who these people are. Amazing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 01:31 PMGeezer says -- and I trust in his sincerity -- that Mukasey was spewing bull. Howso? What was wrong with it? We are not enlightened by Sanders' action.
Posted by: pudge on November 26, 2008 01:32 PMWe always complain about the go-along, get-along politicians, but when a stand-up guy comes along, we hammer him down.
Posted by: russell garrard on November 26, 2008 01:35 PMMy 8th grader who is going to be the first professional chef who doesn't like to cook (our kidding the opted career choice) even baked two pies and another two this weekend. Wonders will never cease.
Posted by: swatter on November 26, 2008 01:35 PMYeah. That's right. Simply because I don't want one of my Supreme Court Justices acting like an asshole in public means I don't mind tyranny.
/rolls eyes
Please. Stop breathing my air.
Posted by: jimg on November 26, 2008 01:46 PMWhen he acting in his capacity as sitting a judge, he is required by the rules of behavior of the court to act with decorum.
Last time I checked, sitting through a dinner speech at a meeting of the Federalist Society is not anything that comes under the blanket of "acting in his capacity as a sitting judge".
That leaves us with just the one thing. Was he yelling fire in a crowded theater or exercising his god given (and constitutionally recognized) right to speak out publicly on a political issue? Analysis complete - Not Guilty!
All of you who are condemning Sanders need to reflect on what the right to speak out is really about.
Just because Sanders chose to do so against something you disagree with doesn't lessen his right to say it.
Neither does his being an elected judge in any way lessen his right to free speech. He might face sanctions if he were to do so in his official capacity, but he still retains his constitutional rights. I think though that since this cry of "Tyrant" was clearly political speech, it may be protected even if were to have been said it from the bench.
In the end the only sanctions that might be applicable for his actions are those he can face at the ballot box next time he runs for re-election.
Posted by: deadwood on November 26, 2008 01:58 PMHe has the "right" as you call it to interrupt a public speaker. That he has the bad manners to exercise that "right" in such a boorish manner says volumes about him.
I wonder if we will hear this same talk about "rights" when Democrats attempt to shut up Limbaugh, and Hannity.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 02:52 PMMukasey was indeed defending tyrants, and attacking the Constitution, which is the foundation of our great and free nation.
Shouting during a speech was impolite. But I can't blame him for giving in to his patriotic impulse. I might have weakened in the same way.
I know that when Obama supporters or Republicans defend the auto or financial sector bailouts I want to scream "tyrant" as well!
So, TWO CHEERS for justice Sanders!
The only reason he doesn't get three is that he loses points for decorum.
But I can't claim I'd have done any better under the circumstances.
Sanders is a good fiscal conservative. He is one of the best defenders of property rights we have on the State Supreme Court. He deserves the support of conservatives in this state.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 26, 2008 03:10 PMSometimes I sort of respect Sanders, at least in comparison to the tyrants he hangs with. But there's something terminally creepy about an old drooling over-the-hill juvenile delinquent who acts like he's a secular god's gift from Code Pink.
About the (un)Fairness Doctrine, Gingrich is (finally) right. Newt said or implied that Obama's too smart for a full frontal assault on free speech. What President BO will do, somebody else suggested, is a stealth hit. The 2002(?) whimpering about media consolidation and local programming will be re-ramped up in a successful effort to achieve Fairness Doctrine consorship without actually raising the Fairness Doctrine from the dead.
Speaking of dead men talking, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. Today, again, he spewed that Republicans lost this year because we abandoned The Proven Limbaugh Formula for Success. The conservative formula that worked for us in 1980 and 1994. The two elections we won because we were unning against Democrat failure (unlike, say, 2008, in which we were running against Limbaugh Republican failure.)
Limbaugh is long overdue for cranial liposuction, and he really needs to stop whining about the Obama Recession. This is, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd aside, the Bush Recession. Utterly. McCain's the only Republican or "Republican" who had a chance against it, and he didn't have a chance.
Rush was right a few months ago when he said that Republicans don't know how to behave when they get majority power. Beyond retailing that one obvious actual fact, Rush has been wrong about almost everything since about January 1995. He's like a Democrat sleeper cell that woke up 14 years ago to destroy our party more completely than any mere Democrat could have done.
No (un)Fairness Doctrine for me, thanks, but getting Limbaugh to shut up might be doing most of us a big fat favor.
Posted by: sic semper rodentia on November 26, 2008 03:22 PMThat's the point. Whether he is in session or not is irrelevent as he is still a representative of the court and a reflection upon the judicial system. His actions were an embarrassment to himself, the state he represents and the court he sits upon. After sobering up, by his waivering comments since, it would appear he either regrets his actions or more likely, regrets he was identified as the raving loon that interrupted Mukasey's speech.
Oh well that's different. Right?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 26, 2008 04:44 PMThat is not what the court rules say, Rick. And besides, court rules of behavior do not trump a judge's rights to free speech as a citizen.
So while he may have exhibited bad behavior, he is not guilty of any corruption or crime.
That does not mean to say his behavior is polite, but I for one do believe that polite behavior is not necessarily always required in the political arena. Politics in now, and always has been, a raucous place as it pits the core beliefs of some against the core beliefs of others. This can involve emotional responses when ones beliefs are challenged.
SP is a mostly polite forum, but sometimes it too gets raucous. That does not minimize the truth or marginalize those speaking. And it is not always "bad manners" to speak the truth loudly.
As I said earlier, Sanders, if he suffers any consequences, will do so in the appropriate forum - the ballot box.
Posted by: deadwood on November 26, 2008 05:56 PMLeftist? Horse s__t!
Justice Sanders is a true libertarian, and he has My vote until one of us passes on!
This is The only Jurist on the Bench that actually knows WHY the Washington Constitution says: "No standing Army shall assemble in this State in time of Peace"
Learn some history people!
Posted by: DennyB on November 26, 2008 06:27 PMI hope he will calmly and carefully explain to you the difference between a court of law, and a political dinner.
deadwood, I don't think anyone is suggesting throwing Sanders into a dungeon or forcing him to do a little time on the rack.
Waterboarding at Gitmo remains a possibility (until 21 January 2009).
What Sanders did is inexcusable. Not terribly serious, but inexcusable.
We should excuse only the most terribly serious of acts.
Sanders is a good fiscal conservative. He is one of the best defenders of property rights we have on the State Supreme Court. He deserves the support of conservatives in this state.
He does. But not many conservatives post or comment here. (Conservatives would never support of "borrow and spend" financing for occupying foreign countries.)
Whether he is in session or not is irrelevent [sic] as he is still a representative of the court and a reflection upon the judicial system.
Yes, it shows that he considers himself independent of the Executive Branch. (This is bad, for some reason.)
As I said earlier, Sanders, if he suffers any consequences, will do so in the appropriate forum - the ballot box.
Given recent elections returns in Washington State, I'd say the chances are excellent he hopes for Sound Politics' condemnation.
Scalia would have masterfully and respectfully used his verbage to tear down the opposing view point. Scalia or Thomas would never have seemed out of place.
Scalia was photographed making an obscene gesture in public. Thomas has admitted he would never have reached his "place" on our Supreme Court without affirmative action.
This is not the first time Mr. Sanders has received criticism for his outspoken views, delivered outside of the courtroom. Thanks in part to us of the ACLU, he has never suffered any consequences for his use of our First Amendment rights. Get used to it.
Posted by: tensor on November 26, 2008 11:28 PMRetire now, to your tents and your dreams.
Sleep. Sleep.
Posted by: Doug Parris on November 27, 2008 12:27 AMbright side: at least the impact of his actions were not like Boom-Boom, his colleague Justice who liked a nip with a wheel;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 27, 2008 05:38 AM"Thanks in part to us of the ACLU, he has never suffered any consequences for his use of our First Amendment rights. Get used to it. ~ tensor"
Hmmm why the silence when Ohio government officials are violating Joe the plumbers privacy rights using computer equipment to check his files? I guess your ACLU thinks those first amendment rights are only for those they deem worthy,right tensor? That is a hell of a lot more worrisome than defending some drunk who makes an outburst at a dinner speech, dontcha think?
Dime, the issue isn't even really Justice Sanders' moronic, idiotic and incorrect outburst. The issue is he's lying as to the cause and reasoning. He also lacked the guts to immediately TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS.
Of course, as many of the leftist scum who post here have proven, they are all about avoiding responsibility, deflecting the true reasons for this issue, and immediately supporting someone frequently targeted by the leftist worms... because of their self-induced BDS dementia.
Avoiding responsibility is why most of you idiots got in lock-step behind that drunk, Bridges. You didn't want her held accountable, either. But then, it's almost always "different" for the leftists, isn't it?
Dime, you and your fellow travelers will have to do much better than this.
And Sanders should resign.
Posted by: Hinton on November 27, 2008 12:08 PMSorry to confuse you Tencents. I should know you aren't up on current events and worse, apparently can't follow the flow of the thread. My bad.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 27, 2008 09:49 PMSander's moronic outburst is an issue, but not a fatal issue. He'll be remembered for years that he was a blithering idiot (kinda like you, ten cents) but that is not the main issue (Gee.... maybe if I typed a little slower, you might get it next time.)
Your deliberate failure to acknowledge that fact goes to the heart of the self-delusion required to be a fringe left nutter... and you perform that role brilliantly.
Posted by: hinton on November 28, 2008 11:28 AMHowever, there is a war on radical Islam, for which we must be vigilant about. The sooner that politicization of this stops,the better off we will be. Continuing with Robert Gates as Sec'y of Defense in the Obama Administration is a good step in that direction
Posted by: KS on November 28, 2008 01:37 PMThere are times that all of us, even State Surpreme Court Justices, feel that we must speak out and no doubt Justice Sanders felt that most strongly at that particular time.
Probably most of us have done things that we would like to retract, if we had time to think about them. Passion is a wonderful trait and, no doubt, Sander's passion at that moment overrode his usual restraint. It's certainly nothing to get upset about.
And the decorum of the court would not allow such an outburse at the bench. Since it was nothing but a political dinner, who cares?
Posted by: Clean House on November 30, 2008 06:33 PMOnly in a state were clueless libtards are either venerated or idolized can Richard Sanders sit on the most important bench in the state...
Sanders hasn't ever instilled anyone with at least two working neurons between their ears with any confidence that he could push a broom properly in the courtroom let alone issue opinions from the bench...
Posted by: juandos on November 30, 2008 09:36 PM...um, Interesting how that courage only comes out after a half dozen rum and cokes though, what a patriot!
Posted by: Rick D. on December 1, 2008 08:15 AM