• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Fan Website Operator Agrees to Pay FTC $1M for Collecting Children's Personal Information | Main | Judge Weighs Allowing Controversial 'Defeat Jihad' Ads in D.C. Metro Stations »

October 04, 2012


ELois P. Clayton

His racist remarks, was CLEARLY a sign that this "judge" IS incapable of showing/being IMpartial before a TRIBUNAL!

This "judge", 'KNEW or SHOULD have KNOWN", that his behavior was UNethical and he should NOT be allowed to sweep this UNprofessional behavior under the rug as if it has no meaning!


Question: If he was being evaluated by the Senate for confirmation after his appointment and this incident was disclosed would he get one "yes" vote?
The Judge is not "naughty." Politicians who fool around or drink too much are "naughty." He is a racist. Racists are evil and should have no role in governing a free people, much less in the administration of justice.


The question is not whether he did or would mistreat a litigant because he is a bigot himself. Its the appearance of impartiality and fairness that is now lost, and which is essential to the integrity of and respect for the bench in a republican government. He should have quit immediately, and he knows it. That failure, more than the email, demonstrates his lack of qualification for the office.

Gospel  Barrister

While this is a free country, "judges" are not free to be racist. He is entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to sit on a bench that should be race neutral and administer "justice" through racist eyes. One doesn't have to wait to see what the effects are because the effects occur every time a decision is made affecting a person of color. And the sad part about this is that the judge still doesn't acknowledge that the mere fact that he sent the email reveals racial biases and prejudices.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

nike shox nz

Until the man does something that actually affects a litigant, let's return to being a free country.

Tujunga Flash

Since Judge Cebull's judgment obviously switches off when he gets emotional about a topic, he'll make bad calls on the bench when atttormeys work out which mental "buttons" can manipulate him.

Whether his momentary mental malfunction resulted from age, "position entitlement," or just instability, he's not a smart choice to put in charge of decisions that affect people's and business's wealth and survival.


Forwarding off-color and insulting e-mail jokes is not an indicator of "temperament." Possibly, "judgment" ... but what viral e-mails one happens to receive and click on in private seems to me pretty remotely relevant to the man's job.

It's very relevant to what kind of person the man is, but if naughty men were disqualified from public service, America would have to have gone without most of its presidents, a large part of its Legislative branch, most of its armed forces, and a lot more.

I myself draw the line at racist joke e-mails, but then again I refuse to watch cruel or violent TV as entertainment. Others don't.

Until the man does something that actually affects a litigant, let's return to being a free country.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad