« Best part of waking up | Main | The Daily Memo - 10/24/07 »

Who’s got two thumbs and a public censure? This guy!

this-guy.jpgJustice Edmund Caplicki, a local judge in the Poughkeepsie area of New York, is an idiot. Back in 2005, he basically told a lawyer, during a court proceeding, that she had a nice ass. Seems that Ruth Boyer was defending a man against theft accusations and Justice Caplicki claims that the accused thief had made comments about the lawyer’s rear. However, the Justice then asked three other male defendants if they agreed that the lawyer had a bodacious rump, and he also asked her if it was “so bad” that folks thought she had a nice tush, laughing while he asked her this.

Two years later, Caplicki has now been publicly censured. The state Commission on Judicial Conduct opted not to kick him off the bench because it determined that this was “an aberration” in Caplicki’s record.

| Comments (4)


Comments

There is something about this story that I don't think has been adequately reported. This did not occur in the judge's chambers (not that would have made it acceptable behavior). This occurred in a crowded courtroom full of people. The treatment of this attorney by the judge was beyond reproach. This was a woman who had worked her way through law school, passed the bar, and excelled as a defense attorney during her career. The comments of the judge were not a "joke". They were a direct attack on everything this attorney had worked for, the right to be treated as a professional, and not the victim of crude sexual comments by a judge who was sitting on the bench in front of a hundred or so people. I can imagine that this sort of attack is every professional woman's nightmare, in which all the years of hard work are snuffed out by a sexist asshole's decision to comment on their body. I just hope, and don't for a moment believe, that this have given the judge some insight into his behavior, and how horrible and destructive his actions were.

Ah, hold up there Sammy. If something is "beyond reproach" that means it is not reproachable, i.e. cannot be criticized or found fault with. I believe what you meant to express was the the judge's behaviour went "beyond the pale" or "crossed the line" or was "over the top" or some other similar cliched phrase. While I admire your disdain for the judge, that is not what your actual words stated in that one instance.

I know this sounds boorish, but am I the only person wondering if she does, in fact, have a nice butt?

Well stated rudy, I noticed the error after I had posted. I also wrote "this have" instead of "this has". I found it interesting that you "admired" my disdain for the judge, as opposed to joining in it.

And yes, Mr. Weldon, your comment is boorish and immature. While your curiosity about the female body is entirely appropriate for a thirteen year old boy who hasn't had any experience with an actual woman (I'm just assuming you aren't an adult) the quality of the butt in question is irrelevant to the issue being discussed.