Judge Called Mukasey "Tyrant" At Speech

Wash. Supreme Court Justice Admits Outburst Shortly Before Attorney General Collapsed

(AP)  State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders says he was speaking his conscience when he stood up and yelled "tyrant!" at U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey last week, during a speech in which Mukasey later fainted.

Mukasey was the keynote speaker at a black-tie dinner Thursday night in Washington, D.C., for The Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. In his speech, Mukasey offered a defense against criticisms about the Bush administration's policies in the war on terrorism.

In a statement released Tuesday, Sanders said he "passionately" disagrees with those policies and felt compelled to say so. Sanders, who is a Federalist Society member, said that he wasn't heckling Mukasey, and left shortly after his outburst.

"I believe we must speak our conscience in moments that demand it, even if we are but one voice," he said in the statement, citing access to the legal system for detainees at Guantanamo Bay and the importance of the Geneva Conventions.

Sanders released the statement after blogs, political TV shows and news reports said that Mukasey had been heckled during the speech and that Sanders might have been the source.

Sanders initially dodged reporters' questions about the incident this week, refusing to comment on anything he might have said at the event.

A video on the Federalist Society's Web site shows that Sanders' outburst came just over 17 minutes into Mukasey's speech, after Mukasey talked about what he said was the "casual assumption among many in media, political and legal circles that the administration's counterterrorism policies have come at the expense of the rule of law."

Shortly after that point on the video, a voice is clearly heard yelling: "Tyrant! You are a tyrant!"

Mukasey can be seen briefly stopping and looking up from his speech. Other members of the audience can be heard shushing the yeller, and another voice is heard saying "sit down."

A few minutes later, Mukasey began shaking and slurring his words. He repeated a phrase - "as a result" - three times and then slumped forward on the podium. His FBI security detail ran to catch him as he fell. He was released from the hospital the next day and his office said he had suffered a fainting spell.

Sanders said he had already left the speech before Mukasey collapsed, and did not learn of it until the next day.

"It should go without saying that, despite our vastly different views on what constitutes upholding the rule of law, I hope he continues to recover and remain in good health," Sanders wrote.

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander said Tuesday that he was very concerned about the outburst's potential damage to Sanders' reputation, and to the court.

Alexander said he planned to speak privately to Sanders to express his disapproval about the incident, but said he has no authority to discipline him.

"People have a First Amendment right to speak, but that's not conduct that I would like to see judges display," Alexander said.

Sanders first was elected to the Supreme Court in a 1995 special election, and was re-elected in 1998 and 2004. He next faces voters in 2010.

Sanders, a self-described conservative and defender of individual freedoms, is known for his sometimes passionate dissenting opinions. His personal biography says that, as a judge, he "regards protection of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties as the first duty of our highest court."

In 2005, Sanders was given an admonishment - the lightest possible punishment - by the state Judicial Conduct Commission for touring Washington's sex predator commitment center at McNeil Island while residents had appeals pending.

The commission said Sanders went to the center, which houses sex offenders who are kept in custody indefinitely after their prison sentences are served, at the invitation of some inmates.

Officials said Sanders told the inmates he couldn't talk about their specific cases, but accepted documents from some and brought up issues that were before the court, including that of "volitional control" - whether sex predators can control their criminal impulses.

Sanders appealed his admonishment all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to review his case.

He previously was cleared of breaking judicial canons of ethics for attending an anti-abortion rally at the state Capitol.

[earache4]

If Mukasey faints again, I say we revive him by waterboarding.

[lady_organs]

How dare he speak his concious when it obviously wrong to do so. We are at a time of war and Bush is still president and I hope he is sent to the prison camp for his uinpatriotic display.

[lady_organs]

If Mukasey faints again, I say we revive him by waterboarding.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by earache4
==========================
Troll.

[earache4]

If Mukasey faints again, I say we revive him by waterboarding.
Posted by earache4

Troll.
Posted by Lady_Organs at 09:29 AM

Even better, pull him behind a trolling boat. Good ideas Broad_Parts!

[bjcone8559]

How dare he speak his concious when it obviously wrong to do so. We are at a time of war and Bush is still president and I hope he is sent to the prison camp for his uinpatriotic display.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Lady_Organs


You should probably try, if you can, to understand the difference between a ''just war'' and an ''unjust, illegal invasion''. There is NOTHING PATRIOTIC in supporting this criminal Bush/Cheney regime.

[dronemonk]

I want key members of the Bush admin to be indicted and charged with fraud after they''re out of office (providing Bush doesn''t issue a very broad pardon on his way out). Those bad men defrauded the USA into an unnecessary war of aggression. Make ''em pay for their crimes. If only to dissuade those who come after them from breaking the same laws.

[flreason]

Tucker:

Well said, and worth repeating.
* * * * * * *
Too bad other judges do not share his support for the US Constitution & rule of law.

It''''s even more unfortunate that an entire political party (GOP) has nothing but contempt for the US Constitution & rule of law.

Someone should remind Mr. Mukasey that the US Supreme Court has overruled nearly everything the Bush administration originally claimed or tried to do during their grab for unlimited executive authority.

Hopefully, we will see even more evidence of a return to the rule of law when various members of the Bush administration, including Mukasey, are indicted and tried for war crimes.

Posted by tuckerndfw

[txgrouch2007]

Wow, I was just reading about Khrushchev - he did the same thing. REGULARLY.

Even though Sanders is probably right. But it was poor decorum, and it was disrespectful.

The USA will collapse under its own weight like the Soviet Union did. This is just another illustration of how far we''ve fallen.

[txgrouch2007]

It''''s even more unfortunate that an entire political party (GOP) has nothing but contempt for the US Constitution & rule of law.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 09:38 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Yes, like the ruling on the Second Amendment.

It''s disturbing that almost half of the Supreme Court said it "finds nothing" in the Second Amendment that gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

That''s just scary.

[flreason]

"How dare he speak his concious when it obviously wrong to do so. We are at a time of war and Bush is still president and I hope he is sent to the prison camp for his uinpatriotic display."

Posted by Lady_Organs

Speaking one''s conscience is the responsibility of every American citizen. When citizens stop speaking out, despotism rules.

However, I certainly agree...that I hope Bush is sent to Guantanamo for his "uinpatriotic" display. LOL

[macusweil]

"I believe we must speak our conscience in moments that demand it, even if we are but one voice,"

The judge spoke for most Americans who believe we must hold ourselves to the highest standards in these matters. This is true even if it costs some lives in the short run because it preserves liberty and human dignity.

Many generations of Americans have fought and died in the pursuit of freedom and human rights. When we abandoned these ideals for short sighted goals of easy victory we stain their sacrifices.

[macusweil]

"Even though Sanders is probably right. But it was poor decorum, and it was disrespectful."

People who torture and abandon the rule of law for their own expediency deserve no respect and should be heckled loudly if not dragged off the stage.

[txgrouch2007]

Kruschev was the head of the Soviet gov''''t and had the right to yell & scream all he wanted.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:01 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Apparently the rest of the Soviets disagreed. That''s why Brezhnev and others voted to replace him - with Brezhnev.

Try reading, you might learn something.

[chicagorail8]

This filthy piece of Republiturd excrement FAINTS and we are supposed to feel - what - sorry for an old fool that not only subscribes to torture and bending the rule of law, but actively seeks to deny basic civil rights to citizens ?


He deserves to clutch his bony claw to his under-developed chest and suffer a coronary that sends great gouts of his lifeblood spurting out of his gaping maw upon the first three rows of the gibbering monkey-members of the ''federalist society,'' or whatever neo-Nazi group he was entertaining with his lies.


This piece of ********* deserves to die a violent death for his life''s work.


So what if he got shouted down and fainted ?

He should have been shot.

[txgrouch2007]

There is nothing in the second amendment that explicitly gives citizens the right to bear arms.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:05 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Except for the part that says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, most of us equate "the people" with "the citizens."

A disturbing and frightening element of our society has successfully asserted that "the people" really means "the goverment, on behalf of the people." Which is TERRIFYING if you search our the other uses of "the people" in the Bill of Rights and replace it with "the government."

TRY IT YOURSELF AND SEE IF YOU STILL FEEL LIKE A FREE CITIZEN.

Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled FOR the rational understanding that "the people" means "the private, individual citizens acting on their own behalf and without requiring membership in any exclusive society that would then have the power to disenfranchise them of their rights arbitrarily and capriciously."

Understand now? No? Then go back in your cardboard box.

[txgrouch2007]

Kruschev was in fact the head of the Soviet gov''''t.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:10 AM : Nov 26, 2008

But it didn''t last.

Once again, that whole reading thing. Are you learning disabled or something?

[txgrouch2007]

People who torture and abandon the rule of law for their own expediency deserve no respect and should be heckled loudly if not dragged off the stage.
Posted by macusweil at 10:02 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Yah, super duper.

So this is what we can expect from the Obama years?

Well, I just finished target shooting with my Remington 12 gauge, and I cleaned and lubed it up real good before I put it away. Still got plenty of ammo left for any "civil unrest" that starts up...

[bobnjersey]

[It''''s even more unfortunate that an entire political party (GOP) has nothing but contempt for the US Constitution & rule of law.]
[Posted by tuckerndfw at 09:38 AM : Nov 26, 2008]

it''s not that they don''t have any respect for the constitution ... it''s that their current guiding principle is ''the ends justify the means''. so ... if what''s between where they currenty are, and where they want to be, is the constitution ... and ''the means'' to their end is to ignore the rule of law and the fundamentals of the constitution ... then that''s exactly what they''ll do ... and they''ll see nothing wrong with it.

references to the second ammendment, equal protection (the 2000 election ussc descision), executive privilege, and other executive branch lattitudes are all built in ''means'' toward their ends ... so those are all ok.

[impeach___w]

txgrouch2007 Thanks for clearing that up!

[txgrouch2007]

No, I am serious.

GET A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION YOURSELF.

LOOK A THE PART LABELLED "AMENDMENTS."

For the first fourteen or so amendments, everywhere you see "the people," cross it out and replace it with "the government."

Now READ IT. If that doesn''t SCARE YOU OUT OF YOUR WITS, you have no wits.

[impeach___w]

The following COMBAT ARMS SURVEY was sent by a U.S. Marine, with a (non-anonymous) note explaining that the survey was given May 10, 1994, at the Twenty-nine Palms (CA) Marine base, to a number of Marines from different units.

The marine also reported an article documenting a March ''94 "high-profile tour" of the Twenty-nine Palms base by a delegation from the Council on Foreign Relations.

This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regards to nontraditional missions.

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the United States for any of the following missions?

Question 46 The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

strongly agree- strongly disagree

Would any of you shoot back in this scenerio?

[flreason]

txgrouch2007:

You left out the wording that qualifies the 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms."

This is the full wording:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For an interesting essay that provides the historical context of this amendment, check out this link:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.1/forum_konig.html

[excoachken]

So?

This judge seems to be within his rights and I certainly agree with his belief that the Bush Administration has abandoned the rule of law...perhaps there is a better way to put it. I don''t think Bush understands the rule of law and has little respect for it because he thinks only of the present moment as most right wingers do. They seem to be unable to see down the line and to understand what their beliefs really mean and how they are going to play out in future scenarios. Mukasey is just another "yes" man appointed by this renegade of a president.

[txgrouch2007]

The founding fathers were specifically referring to the authority of the federal government to prohibit possession of firearms by citizens of individual states.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:22 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Do you still live in a cardboard box?

I think I know why.

[txgrouch2007]

For an interesting essay that provides the historical context of this amendment, check out this link:
Posted by flreason at 10:27 AM : Nov 26, 2008

For an EVEN MORE interesting read, read THE SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT SAYS YOU''RE WRONG.

It was just in the past year or so, too...

[impeach___w]

Thank goodness some Great judge had the gonads to call him out as a tyrant and it blew his mind. We need this judge showing up at Every Speach from this administration to speak the truth and hopefully make the speaker face plant into the mic for a little nap. We''ll Done and was on camera too. Brilliant!

Let us hope the ne AG has ''nads like these.

[jowand]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For an interesting essay that provides the historical context of this amendment, check out this link:
http://www.historycooperative.org
/journals/lhr/22.1/forum_konig.html

Posted by flreason at 10:27 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Check out the punctuation in the 2nd Ammendment statement you posted, they are two completely separate phrases in the same sentence. The militia and the right to bear arms are two separate subjects.

[excoachken]

For the "trily limited" who believe that everything is about God and Guns, it''s time for you (or is it y''all) to get a life!

[macusweil]

"Well, I just finished target shooting with my Remington 12 gauge, and I cleaned and lubed it up real good before I put it away. Still got plenty of ammo left for any "civil unrest" that starts up..."

Good for you man,, if we didn''t need it during the disaster that was the Bush presidency doubtful you''ll need it any time soon..

"So this is what we can expect from the Obama years?"

Good paying jobs for Americans and eventually a budget surplus again now the free spending Repubs have been ejected.

Out of control GOP deficits started under Reagan who spent his way out of recession using his grand kid''s credit card. Combined Bush and Reagan created 11 trillion dollars of tax dollar red ink.

[txgrouch2007]

I assure each and everyone one of you nutcases with your "right to bear arms" that if your little gang had attempted to do anything unlawful and you attempted to resist by using deadly force, we would have gunned you down like dogs.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:33 AM : Nov 26, 2008

So, what you''re saying is the continued insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan are the result of - what?

I thought you said an armed population doesn''t stand a chance against a modern military...then why are the insurgents still active???

Do you wear camo underwear in your cardboard box?

[impeach___w]

tuckerndfw

So you wouldn''t shoot back at someone who is shooting at you for a constitutionally protected act such as owning a firearm?

Yours sound like the words of an un-american coward

[downsteamjim]

When Obama is President, this will be a hate crime.

[txgrouch2007]

Good paying jobs for Americans and eventually a budget surplus again now the free spending Repubs have been ejected.

Out of control GOP deficits started under Reagan who spent his way out of recession using his grand kid''''s credit card. Combined Bush and Reagan created 11 trillion dollars of tax dollar red ink.

Posted by macusweil at 10:36 AM : Nov 26, 2008

LOL! We''ll check back in a year or so to see how your fantasy translates into reality.

First dose of reality: if the GOP was "ejected," does that mean the Democrats now have a 2/3 majority in Congress? In EITHER house???

LOL! Dream on...

[txgrouch2007]

Yours sound like the words of an un-american coward
Posted by impeach___w at 10:37 AM : Nov 26, 2008

He sounds like a redcoat to me.

Except redcoats don''t live in a cardboard box.

[macusweil]

"LOL! Dream on..."

Not a dream my friend, watch and be amazed.. no tax payer funded GOP witch hunts this time around like in Clinton era. The liberal agenda in JFK tradition will put America back on top of the world for several decades to come.

[impeach___w]

txgrouch2007, such a brave soldier You Would like it if the military declared war on Ameriacn cilivians. How pathetic, you served so long and never realized what is means to be an American

[jowand]

Sanders is just another frustrated Progressive loser who can''t handle opinions other than his own.

[aldon61]

tuckerndfw

So you wouldn''''t shoot back at someone who is shooting at you for a constitutionally protected act such as owning a firearm?

Yours sound like the words of an un-american coward


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by impeach___w at 10:37 AM : Nov 26, 2008

I think you two are debating two issues. First, impeach_w, I agree with you that we have a right to gun ownership and the supreme court rules this year that IS a correct interpretation. Tuckerdfw has stated that if a group of citizens takes their arms to the street that he would, as a member of the military would fire upon them. For what it''s worth, I think you''re both right. As a veteran myself, like tuckerdfw, I too would fire on the citizens, it would be my duty to do so. Soldiers don''t make the rules, they obey them. BTW guys, I like both of your posts that I''ve seen here; you normally aren''t too far apart.

[txgrouch2007]

You Would like it if the military declared war on Ameriacn cilivians. How pathetic, you served so long and never realized what is means to be an American
Posted by impeach___w at 10:45 AM : Nov 26, 2008

I thought I was agreeing with you.

I must have dialed the wrong number. Sorry!

[txgrouch2007]

But, if dreaming of going down in a blaze of glory for your cause gives you orgasms, it''''s okay with me. Just don''''t expect me to offer support or provide anything other than ridicule.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:46 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Seems like this whole question started from some military magazine asking members of the armed services if they would gun down US civilians.

Who''s fantasizing about blazes of glory???

[impeach___w]

Sorry was meant for tuckerndfw :
such a brave soldier You Would like it if the military declared war on Ameriacn cilivians. How pathetic, you served so long and never realized what is means to be an American

[flreason]

txgrouch2007:

I assume you''re speaking of the same Supreme Court that initially ruled in favor of suspension of rights for Guantanamo detainees, and later reversed itself when it became evident that the Bush Administration no longer had the support of the American people. This has been one of the most partisan courts in our history. Their reversing themselves is a clear indicator that their previous rulings were not based on legal precedent or Constitutionality, but rather on political expediency.

The essay I linked to provides historical perspective that was common knowledge to all Americans who had their roots in the British Isles. The essay was published in the Law and History Review in 2004. Dr. Konig is a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, and an expert in Anglo-American legal history.

I provided the link so that people could read this excellent essay and come to an informed conclusion on their own.

[txgrouch2007]

So now I''''m sleeping in a culvert.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:46 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Those are MUCH stronger. Better able to withstand hurricanes and tornadoes.

Not so good in floods, tho. Well, you can''t have it all, can you. Life is all about trade-offs.

[stevex47]

"The US hasn''''t fallen, the GOP dragged this nation down further than at anytime I can remember (since Eisenhower''''s days). The GOP is most contemptible & disgusting organized group of gangsters & nutcases on the planet."

Very well said. To say that the US has "fallen", is an attempt to disguise reality of the GOP''s incompetence and guilt.

[txgrouch2007]

I provided the link so that people could read this excellent essay and come to an informed conclusion on their own.
Posted by flreason at 10:54 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Golly, maybe you should email it to the Supreme Court, and they''ll reverse their decision JUST FOR YOU!!! LOL!

I grew up reading American Rifleman magazine. Who''s to say which of us is better "informed?"

[txgrouch2007]

To say that the US has "fallen", is an attempt to disguise reality of the GOP''''s incompetence and guilt.
Posted by stevex47 at 10:57 AM : Nov 26, 2008

We''ll check back in a year and see how much better the Democrats can do...

[flreason]

I should have said "all COLONIAL Americans..."

[impeach___w]

Posted by tuckerndfw You are not qualified to determine the constitutionality of anything. Neither I am. That is the sole jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.

The surpreme court has spoken and ruled on this.

If you can''t determine a lawful order from an unlawful one , you don''t need to be in uniform or at least not outside of prison.

[txgrouch2007]

To say that the US has "fallen", is an attempt to disguise reality of the GOP''''s incompetence and guilt.
Posted by stevex47 at 10:57 AM : Nov 26, 2008

Actually, the "fall" I was referring to is the utter ugliness that has come to characterize most public discourse, including these discussions.

Who said "Bush is Hitler?"