By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 2:51 PM
PUB DEF EXCLUSIVE Labels: Breaking_News, Editorial
A new book by Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr. is sure to make some waves in the new year.
In "The Tyranny of Tolerance", which goes on sale December 26, Judge Dierker examines why a Christian is fired when he voices opposition to his employer's favoring homosexuals? Why are white and Asian students denied admission to colleges and universities in the name of "diversity"? And why does a judge who defends a monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse lose his job?
According to his publisher's website, "Even those outraged by America’s courts will be shocked by Judge Dierker’s story of activist judges, deep-pocketed special interest groups, pandering politicians, and others who claim to stand for tolerance, equal rights, and social justice, but actually stand for something quite different—something closer to totalitarianism."
"Judge Dierker shows how we can defeat the radical liberals’ tyranny of tolerance. By wresting back control of the courts and restoring the legal, moral, and religious principles embedded in the Constitution, we can ultimately reclaim the republic the Founders bequeathed to us."
Funny how this book wasn't released before Dierker was re-elected last month by nearly 70% of the vote in this "liberal", Democrat-leaning city.
13 Comments:
First the Draper debacle and now this. When will voters start paying attention to judicial retentions!!!!!!!
12/21/2006 3:03 PM
Didn't you guys know that liberals are godless? We burn Christians in true Nero fashion.
12/21/2006 3:06 PM
Bar Associations don't evaluate a judge's personal fanatacism before giving a rating. Then again, most voters don't read anything, including Bar Association ratings, before voting to retain a judge or not. It seems like 99% of voters vote entirely all "yes" or "no," with roughly 66% always voting straight "yes," and 33% voting straight "no."
12/21/2006 4:16 PM
They may not rate fanatacism, but when you have some judges getting in the 80 and 90% approval and then others getting below 70, it seems pretty likely that there is something to be desired in the low scorers. They do rate impartiality, which this guy obviously doesn't have.
12/21/2006 5:25 PM
I voted against him because of his court order to demolish the Century/Syndicate Trust block, which was pretty far out of line with legal precedent.
12/21/2006 5:54 PM
Gee, I could have sworn I heard both Chief Mokwa and Mayor Slay on the news today lamenting "soft" judges who gave out far too many probations instead of hard time.
12/21/2006 8:52 PM
Judge Dierker is one of the few judges in the 22nd judicial circuit who is willing to put criminals in prison -- as opposed to giving the same defendant chance after chance at probation. He is a good judge who works hard. He expects the lawyers before him to be professional and prepared. He commonly conducts up to two criminal jury trials a week. He is not liberal; he is not conservative -- he is fair and thoughtful.
12/22/2006 9:59 AM
Judge Dierker is a good judge. Why do liberals always fear someone who is willing to lean a little conservative? This city is to liberal and it is costing us jobs because businesses fear the gangs and thugs.He puts violent criminals in jail and doesn't like judges over stepping their judicail bounds. Why don't we try more conservative judges, fiscally responsible elected representatives (some may even be republican), and join together across racial lines to fight the gangs and thugs (some elected representatives) that control our city. Just a thought.
12/22/2006 12:00 PM
"Good judge" is a subjective term, and I appreciate a judge who will sentence a criminal to jail time. But I went to the random house site and read what this judge thinks of women, and as a woman I would never want to be judged by him. I don't care if you call him conservative, independent, whatever. The label is irrelevant to me. His thoughts are laid out clearly for us and I would never feel comfortable that I, as a woman, had been judged fairly by him. This isn't about whether he puts people in jail, it's about the great contempt he is showing for the people he is judging.
12/22/2006 1:53 PM
"religious principles embedded in the Constitution"
I was wondering who/what to thank for Congress providing and maintaining a navy, my right not to quarter soldiers in my house, and recess appointments by the President. Little did I know it had to do with religion. Thanks, Judge Dierker, for clearing that up.
12/22/2006 3:12 PM
I have known Judge Dierker for many years, I am a woman, and I have always perceived him to be a fair, honest and hard-working jurist. I'll read his book and decide what I think based on the whole book, not just Random House snippets.
Judge Dierker will put criminals in jail when they deserve it, not give them probation time after time the way some of our judges do. Maybe they are the ones we should be identifying as part of the problem in the city instead of Bob Dierker.
12/23/2006 11:41 AM
All three of the above who are talking about putting criminals in jail, I don't think you are getting the problem. This is not about whether he puts criminals in jail. It is about whether after seeing his thoughts in this book (and they aren't just "snippets" on that site, go check it out) certain groups are going to feel that they do not have a chance at being judged fairly in front of someone with this belief system. You all three say he is fair--that is your subjective belief, and you're entitled to it. What about when he's not hearing criminal cases, and is in civil court hearing sexual harassment cases? Would you really feel, if you were a woman alleging sexual harassment in his court, that you were going to get a fair hearing? I wouldn't. That's the problem. But at least he's let his feelings out so women and any others who feel he has a bias against them can know and request a different judge.
12/23/2006 3:36 PM
As a woman, I would never feel comfortable with this man as a judge regardless of the case. Just the excerpt shows that he has problems with women in non-traditional roles, and I'm sorry I can't pretend to be brain dead and man dependent in order so that he may not feel threatened.
Beyond cases of civil liberty (which he seems to hold in low regard) how can we trust a man who has such low esteem for the court system to which he belongs that he drags it into national view for others to laugh at and spurn? He will make of the Missouri judicial system a standing joke, a byword for a contaminated white southern legal system. The "South will rise again" and all that rot that we seemed to be dragged into, time and again.
When one also realizes that he has become a hero of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group with strong attachments to the KKK and other white supremacists organizations, one can only imagine how this will end up playing over the long term.
He should resign, but I've found that people of this nature never resign. All one can do is expose his form of bias and bigotry without increasing the sales of his book.
Speaking non-anonymously...
Shelley Powers
http://just.shelleypowers.com
12/26/2006 10:43 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home