Halfwit Jurist Given the Boot for Being a Jerk

Regardless of your stance on immigration, I think the reasonable people among us will say that the judge involved in this story sounds like a total jackass:

A judge who threatened deportation to Mexico for an illegal immigrant seeking a restraining order against her husband has been dropped from the roster of part-time judges used by the Los Angeles County Superior Court.


“I hate the immigration laws that we have, but I think the bailiff could take you to the immigration services and send you to Mexico,” the judge responded, according to a court transcript. “Is that what you guys want?”

I have a feeling that what she wanted was for her husband to stop beating her, and for our justice system to do something about it. As evidenced by the fact that she later moved into a domestic violence shelter and had her request for a restraining resubmitted and granted by a decent judge instead of an obnoxious prick pretending to be a fair jurist and making light of other people’s suffering. Fuck you Bruce Fink. I’m sure if it was some Kappa Alpha Gamma brah smacking your daughter around at a Tri Delt kegger at USC you’d suddenly feel very impassioned about the subject.

CategoriesUncategorized

15 Replies to “Halfwit Jurist Given the Boot for Being a Jerk”

  1. I wrote about the incident at my blog. I was so angered by the judge’s comments that he knew what was best for Aurora Gonzalez. It made me think of my best friend who worked with immigrant women regarding domestic abuse.

    Oh yeah, Fink is from Orange County, which lends to Gustavo Arellano (of the OC Weekly’s “Ask a Mexican”) thesis that OC is a breeding ground for anti-Mexican sentiment.

  2. And there are still people who think having local law enforcement start enforcing existing (let alone potential) immigration laws is a good idea. A good idea!? Distrust is rampant enough within certain communities – such as the Latino community – wouldn’t it be great if everyone out there with brown skin could get asked for proof of legal status? Or wouldn’t it be great if women like the one here were condemned to die at the hands of their husband-aggressors?

    That judge must be arguing from the a related moral position to those who say vaccinating girls against HPV is telling them to have sex. If you have sex before marriage – you deserve to die of cervical cancer. Likewise, if you come to the US illegally, you deserve a violent and degrading existance and probably death. OR at the very least, you don’t deserve *our* help getting you out of this situation. You take the good, you take the bad, right?

    F*cker.

  3. Damn those pesky laws! Why enforce them!

    I know you think you’ve really showed us with your stunning insight, but that’s essentially the stand that Fink took isn’t it? As a state judge, he had no auhority to order an arrest for a violation of a federal law. It wasn’t his job. Period. It WAS his job to preside over the issue at hand, and he chose concentrate on issues outside of his jurisdiction instead. You don’t get to pick and choose what laws you want to enforce. If you believe in the process, then you believe in the WHOLE thing, not just the parts you like.

  4. You enforce them when it serves the greater public policy goals at the center of our civilization. Creating a system in which someone in physical danger cannot access governmental institutions for fear of retribution does not serve the greater good. The harm being done to this woman by her husband was far greater than whatever perceived harm she caused to the state/country/etc.

    Enforcement – like immigration – is far from a black and white issue. To dismiss the situation with a tired quip does a disservice to the greater community and the pursuit of justice and fairness for everyone – legally present or otherwise.

    To put it another way: had this husband killed the woman, he would still be subjected to trial under the laws we have against murder regardless of whether the victim were legal or illegal. How on earth could we operate as a society otherwise?

  5. I’m sure you would. In fact, I’m sure you’re man enough to say all kinds of things since you’re hiding behind an anonymous name and email address.

  6. Sure am. Because I’m just as entitled to my insane opinions without being harrassed by some jackasses as you are to your “oh so well thought out and well-meaning” feel good ones. Sorry, I couldn’t care less about a non-citizen getting the same rights as one.
    Next thing you’ll tell me I should feel sorry for the illegal alien one woman baby factory that the LA Times just wrote about. Guess what? I don’t.

  7. yeah, people only count if they’re REAL americans. . .

    what kind of stupid logic is that?

  8. Because I’m just as entitled to my insane opinions without being harrassed by some jackasses as you are to your “oh so well thought out and well-meaning” feel good ones.

    Excuses, excuses. I make all kind of public statements that expose me to ridicule and harrassment. Which, quite frankly, I think I’m more at risk of as a lefty than you are as a wingnut (i.e. Freep). The difference between us is that I have enough balls to do it out in the open where I can be held accountable for it. Come back to the party when you decide your’re mature enough to stand up for what you believe in.

    I also have to add that I love that you write “oh so well thought out” as if it’s a barb. Are you actually arguing against thinking?

  9. Bravo, Mr. Cross, bravo. Yes, I happen to agree that the alleged jurist* was not fulfilling the obligation at hand (translation: he was an asshat). However, my intent here is to support your stand against the alleged coward* who lists himself (herself?) as “kneejerk”. I am a free speech advocate, and I’m happy that I live in a country where insensitive, shortsighted folk like kneejerk are allowed to speak out loud. Sadly, we don’t have a law that says you have to be facing full-profile when you do it. Taking a stance while keeping your real identity is sadly reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan’s delight in the bullying tactic of wearing hoods.

    * jurist: One who has thorough knowledge and experience of law, especially an eminent judge, lawyer, or legal scholar.

    * coward: An ignoble, uncourageous person.

  10. Exactly. Some people can’t even tell when they are being played.
    And I don’t even know what a FREEP is, btw.

Comments are closed.