You Won’t Have Judge Persky To Kick Around Anymore

It’s hard to blame him for saying, “screw this, I don’t need to have my family go through this insanity.” It’s not that the voters who elected him to office have lost faith in him. It’s not even that the ridiculous petition of a “million” clueless feminists caused the system to give him the boot.

Not even the law professor who disgraced Stanford Law School for her stupidity and nastiness, and who swears she will persist in her quest to cleanse the judiciary of judges who won’t rule through the feminist lens, won the day. It’s that Judge Aaron Persky, who imposed a sentence that feminists felt was too lenient, decided he didn’t need to put up with any more of this crap.

The judge, Aaron Persky, of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, will be moved to the civil division in San Jose, Calif., effective Sept. 6, according to an announcement late Thursday.

“While I firmly believe in Judge Persky’s ability to serve in his current assignment, he has requested to be assigned to the civil division, in which he previously served,” the Santa Clara County Superior Court’s presiding judge, Rise Pichon, said in the announcement, which was obtained from the court on Friday.

“Judge Persky believes the change will aid the public and the court by reducing the distractions that threaten to interfere with his ability to effectively discharge the duties of his current criminal assignment.”

And are the deeply sensitive lawyers applauding this move? Not exactly.

Roderick O’Connor, a deputy public defender in Santa Clara County and a supporter of Judge Persky’s, called the transfer a “big loss.” He said the judge didn’t deserve to be the target of “hysteria” because he is extremely prudent and fair, according to The Mercury News.

“It’s a shame he’s moving,” he added, “because I believe criminal defendants and prosecutors deserve a judge of Persky’s caliber.”

The district attorneys liked him. The public defenders liked him. He was fair and smart. So what was he not? He was not a judge who did as Michelle Dauber demanded, the law professor who had a hate on him before this happened, and seized upon the Brock Turner sentence to rally as many ignorant and easily manipulated women and their allies as possible, to join in her parade of outrage.

Michele Dauber, a Stanford University law professor who is leading an effort to have voters decide next year whether Judge Persky should remain on the bench, said Friday that the recall effort would continue to publicize and compare his record with that of other judges.

“Many cases are heard in civil court involving women’s rights — for example, workplace and educational sexual harassment cases, or students suing their colleges for sexual assault, or victims suing their perpetrators,” Professor Dauber said. “All of those cases are civil cases, and there is no room for a biased judge in civil court either.”

Dauber and all her angry girls* are spewing a lie.  What they demand isn’t an unbiased judge, but a judge biased for them, a judge who will promise to send every Brock Turner to prison forever, plus cancer. These are the cries of Sharia law for feminists, and no judge who imposes a sentence that fails to be harsh enough to sate their blood lust will do.

While it may be understandable that Judge Persky has had enough of this crap, despite the support of every player in the criminal justice system who recognizes that Dauber and her shrieking minions are dangerous and wrong, this bodes poorly for the legitimacy of the system. And to add insult to injury, it apparently won’t end the stupidity because Dauber won’t rest until she’s destroyed Judge Persky, because this has made her an important person in the world of feminism, whereas before she was a nobody whose name meant nothing.

Ah, the glory of being an overnight icon amongst the fangirls.

It’s not as if Judge Persky would have sat on the bench forever. It’s not as if Judge Persky is the only smart and fair judge, by all account of the people who practiced before him. But the message isn’t just about Judge Persky. The threat to every judge who has the audacity to not check the feminist rulebook before imposing sentence, and become the next Judge Persky, is clear.  Cut a defendant a break and they will rain shit on you, your name, your family, everything you ever touch.

Judicial independence, for better or worse, is a cornerstone of the legal system.  The prosecution argues for the sentence it seeks to have the court impose. The defense does the same. Maybe a victim will offer an impact statement. And the judge will apply the sentencing laws.

The judge may be wrong. Sentencing isn’t magic, and judges don’t have some secret way to know what the “right” sentence should be. Sometimes, the sentence is too long. Sometimes, the sentence is too short. Sometimes, people will disagree with the sentence. Sometimes for the right reasons. Sometimes for the wrong reasons. And we have appellate courts to review sentences, and we sometimes have to suck it up and recognize, this time, the sentence imposed was not the one we, if we were the judge, would impose.

None of this is good enough for the Daubers. Like the true believers of Salem, they demand that the witches be burned.  And they know the witches, even though they know nothing beyond the stories they tell each other. That’s the joy of being a moron, the ability to believe with every iota of their being that they’re right in their blindness, so much so that they can justify in their twisted ignorance demanding harm be imposed on another person.

What judge needs to put up with this crap from the ignorant masses? It was enormously bold before to buck the easy path of burn the defendant, put him away forever and soothe the fevered brow of the fearful and angry.  Some judges won’t give a damn, but some judges may well have this in the back of their heads and, sitting atop the sentencing fence, say to themselves, I don’t need to be subject to the shitstorm that fell on Judge Persky. “I sentence you to forever so the little girls won’t make my life miserable.”

“Hell hath no fury” has been turned into legal doctrine, and Judge Persky is its first victim.



19 thoughts on “You Won’t Have Judge Persky To Kick Around Anymore

  1. Nagita Karunaratne

    Isn’t this somewhat like the medical student that fails anatomy and ask to be graduated anyway if he/she promises not to actually pick up a scalpel?

    1. SHG Post author

      I have no clue how your analogy has anything to do with this, so my answer is no, it’s nothing like that. Of course, if you can offer some cognizable connection, maybe it is.

  2. Mike

    Seems like Mizz Dauber is from the school of those who can, do…those who can’t, teach. And woe to her students who have to out up with the screeching harpy.

    1. losingtrader

      This general argument runs into a problem when it comes to airline pilots.
      On a side note, I favor the dunking test verus burning the witch. It’s easier to clean up.

      1. Mike

        Not wanting to stray too far off topic here, but before one can teach others to fly a plane, they must have a certain number of hours in the cockpit actually flying planes.

        Unfortunately, people in other professions like say, law, don’t have to have had any actual job experience before teaching impressionable youth the ins and outs of their chosen career.

        Mizz Dauber can fill their heads with all kinds of sjw claptrap.

  3. B. McLeod

    Of course, as you say, Dauber and her fanatics won’t be satisfied with this, because the judge still has a job. Accordingly, he has not been sufficiently punished as yet for following the sentencing recommendation of the probation office. No amount of lies is sufficient, no adequate “example” has been made, until Persky is destroyed utterly. Yes, obviously this punitive campaign will erode judicial independence and due process, and obviously, it was designed exactly for that purpose.

  4. DaveL

    publicize and compare his record with that of other judges.

    Well, that sounds like a worthwhile exercise. So we'll take his entire record and that of all the other judges in the same court, sort the cases by charge, prior criminal history, mitigating and aggravating factors, and… oh, by "record" you meant "cherry-picked sets of facts from a cherry-picked set of cases". Sorry, not interested.

    1. Mike

      The old adage… you’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts, somehow doesn’t seem to apply to the SJW crowd.

  5. jim ryan

    The disconnect between reality and perception is ludicrous. I am reminded of the OLD SNL Skit “Common Knowledge” Where UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick competes in a game show which:

    ‘Questions for our show are show are selected by educators from Princeton University to express a broad range of common knowledge that every American should possess. Answers for “Common Knowledge” are determined by a nationwide survey of 17-year-old high school seniors.’

    Some sample Questions and answers:
    Q: Author of Huckleberry Finn? A: Tom Sawyer.
    Q: State Capitols, for $100: Oklahoma. A: Oklahoma City. Q: New Jersey. A: Jersey City…
    It seems that facts don’t exist except as defined by the viewer, or, it’s all about the Feelz!

  6. Male Feminist Veteran

    How utterly ridiculous. From your baseless, magical knowledge of Persky’s motives to the comparison of free speech and action with vigilante justice, this blog post was preposterous.

    It made me laugh aloud how hard you tried to correlate him stepping down of his own volition with the feminist petition and movement not working as intended. You tried to remove any connection between the widespread disgust and media attention with his decision. Notice how I phrased that? You tried.

    Much like you tried to paint him as a poor, misguided judge who is being treated unfairly by a ravenous mob. A mob with no business laying judgement at his feet.

    With the only issue being that the mob is made up of American citizens and that, as a judge, he is absolutely beholden to their criticism and scrutiny. It’s inane the way you tried to paint legal, non-violent civic discourse as if it were the end of the world as we know it. Especially while engaging in it yourself.

    B-b-but it’s different when you do it, right? Why? Because you’re a tiny blog who can’t rally a thousand, let alone a million people behind a single cause? Nah, it’s because they’re evil feminists that you disagree with! And they have the nerve to make their voices heard to effect change in their government! Utterly disgusting and dangerous, right?

    Your hyperbolic, childish equivalencies show that you are wrong on a basic level. Beyond simply disagreeing with feminism, you actually believe it’s a tangible threat to you by its mere existence. Go back to your safe space or learn that the opposition isn’t always evil and the sky isn’t always falling. Those are essentially your options when you’re of that mindset. Because it wasn’t “sharia law” or “salem witch trials” or anything near them that pressured Persky into this move. It was American citizens making their voices heard. And if that bothers you to this degree then you don’t understand what it means to be American.

    1. SHG Post author

      Persky was elected by the voters of Santa Clara County, California. He is not “beholden” to the criticism of American citizens or the media. Judges are never “beholden” to anyone, but to the extent anyone gets a say about his office, it’s the people of Santa Clara County. You are the personification of Dunning-Kruger.

      Dauber is likely aware of this, but she’s playing to an audience of overly passionate blithering idiot, like you, who are easily manipulated because they have no clue what they’re talking about. Being an easily manipulated blithering idiot is no way to go through life.

      1. Wilbur

        An admittedly pedantic point: When I read MFV’s post, I noticed the use of “beholden”, too. It means “indebted”. I most recently heard Ernest T. Bass use it on The Andy Griffith Show.
        So how is it that “as a judge, he is absolutely beholden to their criticism and scrutiny”?

        Your post did not appear to attack those criticizing the judge as beyond the pale simply for criticizing a public official; your objection was a substantive disagreement with their protest.

        But clearly do not understand what it means to be an American.

        1. SHG Post author

          People fail to comprehend the duty of a judge. He’s not a politician, who represents the will of his constituency. To people with a high school knowledge of civics, it’s obvious. To people struggling to justify their feelz, not so much.

        2. Billy Bob

          The self-righteous intelligentsia have arrived. All argument must now cease. We wish Pesky Persky had stood up to the screaming meanies, because it looks as if he caved under pressure.

  7. rxc

    “People fail to comprehend the duty of a judge. He’s not a politician, who represents the will of his constituency.”

    I think that the whole point behind this continuing exercise is to change your understanding of what a judge is supposed to do. They WANT him to be a political animal, they WANT him to represent the will of the progressives, which is the only one that counts.

    They are trying to trying to corrupt the language of the law to get it to mean what they want it to mean, and they are using shaming to get at the people they want to bring down. It send the message to the others:

    “Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.” (Voltaire’s comments about the death of Admiral Byng)

    1. SHG Post author

      I’m both offended and appreciative of your explaining that the quote was from Voltaire’s Candide. I hate erudite people. They make me feel so inadequate.

Comments are closed.