About This Blog

Judging Crimes is a blog about criminal law, violent crime and the judiciary, dedicated to making the liberal case for greater democratic control of the criminal justice system.  It's a "view from the trenches" because it's written by a practitioner, not an academic or journalist.  It examines the changing role of the judiciary in American society by looking at what judges actually do, rather than what they say.  I know what they do because I deal with the consequences every day. 

Opinions issued by judges, from Supreme Court justices on down, are justifications for the exercise of governmental power.  But it is the exercise of power itself that should command our attention, not the justifications.  Judging Crimes is concerned with the reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it. 

American law professors have long liked to say they teach their students "to think like a lawyer."  Learning to think that way is a matter of internalizing certain assumptions.  The practice of judging is likewise based on a foundation of shared assumptions, among them that the United States Constitution -- a document of 8,335 words, the length of a book chapter -- provides an answer to every question.  Rather like a Ouija board.

These assumptions are so ingrained -- and their internalization is so necessary to the successful practice of law -- that most people who subscribe to them aren't even aware of having done so.  Judging Crimes will try to engage not just with the expressions of judicial power, but with the assumptions on which those expressions  rest.  

Judging Crimes won't be filled with daily entries commenting on the day's events or provide a best-of-the-web welter of links.  Many other blogs already do that, far better than I could hope to do.  (Check out these.)  Instead, Judging Crimes will contain pieces of a length that might seem long for a blog but would be short in a serious magazine.  I hope to post new pieces several times a week.

Powered by Squarespace
What's not to like?

Hit the "like" button on Facebook to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 367. Life's a Blitch | Main | 365. Incoherence watch »
Wednesday
Oct222008

366. What's the matter with Minnesota?

How can a state that produced Scott Fitzgerald, Giants in the Earth and my father produce politicians like these? First the Congresswoman. Now the Minnesota Supreme Court candidate.

First there's Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Her remarks about Obama and other Congress members got the press. Her explanation ("I never called all liberals anti-American") made it worse.

But I thought the weirdest thing about her Chris Mathews interview was her affect. There appears to have been a bit of a transmission delay, but even so - that smile! Imagine meeting someone at a party whose eyes and lips wore such dramatically different expressions.  And then imagine that this person says bizarrely nasty things in a second-grade teacher's sing-song. She's Jokerishly creepy.

I've long thought that the biggest hurdle for any incumbent is not to embarrass one's constituents. Now the story is that the Republican congressional campaign is pulling its money out of Bachmann's race, apparently figuring the embarrassment she's caused has doomed her reelection effort.

As for the candidate for Supreme Court, Deborah Hedlund - you can see a YouTube video of her here, as she lounges around her living room in her robe (I've long suspected the nuttier judges do that, but never previously seen it demonstrated) - she received an email filled with all the ugly Obama-is-a-Muslim-and-Islam-is-evil drivel that seems to be making the rounds among Governor Palin's wing of the GOP.

(Here's a story about a New Mexico Republican busily doing her part for the campaign.)

So what does a sitting judge do with an email filled with that kind of brayingly ignorant bigotry and hatred? She writes, "Matt, We speak the same language. And I still need to let voters know they have a choice to 'Seek Justice, Vote For Experience' for the Minnesota Supreme Court."

And then she accidentally hits "reply to all", sending it to many, many people.

Mark Cohen of Minnesota Lawyer Blog gives a kind account of the incident here, claiming to find Hedlund's explanation - by "we speak the same language" she meant to say she wanted to order yard signs from the guy who sent her the email - "plausible."

Well, I'm not so kind. I think it's about as plausible as the rumor (you heard it here first!) that John McCain is a Manchurian candidate, brainwashed during his captivity to aspire for the presidency in order to fulfill the sinister will of the long-dead Ho Chi Minh. I mean, wouldn't that explain a lot? Can you prove it didn't happen like that?

Hedlund said she "disavow[ed]" the email she forwarded to the world and his wife.  But, the story continues, when asked whether she thought Obama was a  Muslim, Hedlund said: "I have no idea what he is. My level of information about the presidential candidates would not fill a thimble."

Again, kindly Mark Cohen takes her at her word as the world's most ignorant political candidate.

I think she's just a liar.  I think she spread the filth intentionally and she played coy with the reporter to give it maximum exposure without actually endorsing it.

Her explanation is exactly - exactly - like that of the Maine nutcase featured on CNN.  It's almost as if they and the New Mexico Republican official were following the same script.  What a coincidence!

Reader Comments (4)

1. In my opinion, Hedlund is a BIGOT. She replies to an e-mail that is titled "Can a Muslim be a Good American?" which lists ten reasons why the answer is "no" by writing back "Matt, we speak the same language."

2. In my opinion, Hedlund is an IDIOT. She hit "reply all" when she sent her message of hate.

3. In my opinion, Hedlund is a LIAR. She told reporters that she had not read the bigoted e-mail or its subject line when she sent it.

Minnesotans should not vote for a judicial candidate who is a bigot, an idiot, and a liar. Dump Hedlund!
October 29, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAnother Thoughtless Tart
1. In my opinion, Hedlund is a BIGOT. She replies to an e-mail that is titled "Can a Muslim be a Good American?" which lists ten reasons why the answer is "no" by writing back "Matt, we speak the same language."

2. In my opinion, Hedlund is an IDIOT. She hit "reply all" when she sent her message of hate.

3. In my opinion, Hedlund is a LIAR. She told reporters that she had not read the bigoted e-mail or its subject line when she sent it.

Minnesotans should not vote for a judicial candidate who is a bigot, an idiot, and a liar. Dump Hedlund!
October 29, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAnother Thoughtless Tart
thanks you
You will have to crawl very nice,owe you gratitude..
January 14, 2010 | Unregistered Commenterpartner
Some time ago, I did need to buy a building for my business but I didn't have enough cash and couldn't order anything. Thank God my friend suggested to try to get the <a href="http://lowest-rate-loans.com/topics/business-loans">business loans</a> at creditors. Thence, I did so and used to be satisfied with my commercial loan.
March 10, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterLUZ32Hahn

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.