Thursday, May 6

First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.

Totally bogus. This is just another in a long string of cases of judges thinking that they are their own little monarchs. I remember other recent cases where a judge was singling own people in his court and ordering police to perform drug searches on them, as well as a judge who refused to let a woman who had gone bald from chemotherapy where a hat cause he didn't like it (both judges had to apologize.) Contempt of court should be limited to actually disrupting the court proceedings, by yelling or making a ruckus or something. The judge doesn't like the shirt too bad. It is a legal, and acceptable shirt to wear out in public. Now the justice system is closed off to those who don't wear clothes acceptable to a judge. So what if judge wants all men to wear suits, what if you can't afford a suit, then you aren't allowed to support your friends. What if a judge thinks a skirt is obscene, or that a girl is showing too much cleavage. The judicial system ought to be open to the american public, and anything that is acceptable in public ought to be acceptable in a court room. If you want to say the shirt is obscene and wearing it anywhere in public should be a crime i don't agree, but at least that's a case that is legitimate. But unless you are going to arrest people for wearing that shirt in public/the library/town hall/etc. it is complete out of line to arrest someone simply for upsetting a judges sensibilities.

On top of which, even if the shirt was inappropriate then the punishment would be to ask the woman to leave/tell her to cover the shirt up/go to the bathroom and turn it inside out. There is no indication that she was asked to leave/cover up the shirt, or that anyone from the judge to someone else working at the court warned her that the shirt may be considered inappropriate. The idea that if you show up for a court hearing to support your friend, a judge can throw you in prison simply because he doesn't like something about you is completely undemocratic. Although i realize it would never happen i strongly hope that this woman does sue the judge, and that the judge is forced to spend a night in jail for misuse of her power on top of whatever financial rewards the woman receives. I imagine the judge is immune from personal liability because she was acting for the state, but that is likewise bogus, she was acting based on personal feelings, and not on the behalf of the state, but to send a personal message. As such she should be held personally liable.


Blogger Aras said...

Contempt of court might have been an over the line ruling, but I would have thrown her out of the courtroom. And I don't know why you're so sure that shirt would be allowed anywhere in public. There are some cities that have banned baggy jeans, certainly wearing a t-shirt as offensive as that one could be considered lewd behavior, which is against the law in most cities.

If somebody wore that t-shirt to the Erasmus English Test, they would not see the outside of Lithuania with any help from me. She was asking for trouble and she got it--as I said, I agree it was too harsh, but something had to be done. That type of obscenity cannot be part of any real public discourse, which is what a courtroom is, an official, public, multilateral inquisition.

9:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home