On this site, the Democratic Party in Michigan showed four pictures (since removed) purportedly of Justice Robert Young of the Supreme Court of Michigan asleep on the bench.
Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said that the photos are stills taken from court videotapes.
In response, the Young campaign compiled a videotape, seen at the top of this article. The tape shows live motion from each of the still moments and appears to convincingly refute the sleeping argument.
“We’re contented to let the voters decide whether he’s been living in Wisconsin, and whether he’s sleeping on the bench,” Brewer said. “We’ll let the voters decide, just like they did in 2008.”
Is that sufficient? It appears to me pretty obvious that the judge wasn’t sleeping at all in those pictures. How can Brewer answer the charge of fabricating the implication that Young was sleeping by simply saying, “We’ll let the voters decide?”
Clearly this Karl Rove wanna be is really a republican disguising himself as a democrat since real democrats would never ever make up lies or engage in dirty politics. I’ve been reassured it’s only republicans who do this sort of thing many times in threads on this very forum.
Well, Brewer is not running for anything. The voters will decide if Young has answered the charge.
And of course the voters will decide. The voters will also decide if Young is an arsonist child molesting music pirate, too. I’m asking if the person responsible for suggesting to the voters that Young sleeps on the bench has acted appropriately with his “Pontius Pilate” answer to the question.
Is the suggestion that this is a rare occurrence? I have heard of judges nodding out in long trials lots of times. Or is it just Democratic judges who nod off?
He was just resting his eyes.
Has he acted appropriately - no. But the people who decide that are the voters. Not sure what else can be said. There’s no way of forcing him to do anything else that doesn’t carry with it consequences far greater than any benefits it might bring.
If Brewer was indeed playing it fast and loose with the facts, then obviously that’s a bad thing - but there’s not much to be done for it, as the other posters have said.
The more interesting point here, I think, is that this is a good illustration of the perils of electing judges. Because the actual work of judging isn’t something that lay people are well-equipped to assess, politicians find (or fabricate) nonsense, and this then defines the electoral campaign.
Democracy, like strong drink, is a splendid thing. But the excess of it, as with an excess of strong drink, becomes messy and embarassing awfully fast.
I know politicians always try to spin things to make their opponents look bad, but outright lying and producing deliberately deceptive images is just despicable. That said, I don’t know what can be done about it. Sue them for slander?
Very uphill battle. The judge is clearly a public figure, and so it’s not enough to show that the images are false; they have to have been published with actual malice. As long as Brewer got them from some third party, he’s probably safe.
I am cautious about wanting laws that restrict speech but these days it seems nearly nothing goes too far and it is getting absurd.
And how is this not malice? Perhaps I do not understand the legal definition of malice but sure looks malicious from where I am sitting with Webster’s in hand.
A reckless disregard for the truth I think should be enough. Even that can be a lofty bar to get over but stuff like this wouldn’t make it. In no way should, “Someone else gave this to me so I just published it” should not be a defense.
A conservative politician did himself in very similarly in Australia, believing someone entirely who turned out to be making stuff up entirely as a way to gain approval.
I think they sometimes convince themselves so much that the person is corrupt that they dont do basic checking when they get information that confirms their preconceived beliefs - it doesnt even occur to them that it might be wrong. In his case at least, it damaged him immensely, more due to appearing incompetent than underhanded because he was so naive as to fall for it.
Hopefully his electoral opponent is using this against him as proof of poor judgment. Given its made it to the news and being posted here, it seems likely.
