A Right-Wing Hero in the Making

Robert Dierker has been a judge on Missouri’s 22nd Circuit for twenty years and, having just been re-elected, apparently decided the time was right to publicly profit from his position by writing a book trumpeting his right-wing ideology:

A book by a veteran St. Louis judge, due out this week, is causing a stir in political and legal circles for its sentiments on “femifascists” and “illiberal liberals.”

And some say it could cost him his job.

The first chapter of “The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault,” has circulated for weeks via e-mail and been widely read in legal circles, lawyers and judges told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The chapter, which frequently uses the term “femifascists” and is titled “The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism,” prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges.

The Associated Press offered a few excerpts from Dierker’s book:

_ “Just as we saw with the femifascists, illiberal liberals don’t want equality; they want to make some people more equal than others. And they’ve made it happen through their dominance of the courts over the past seventy-five years. Liberals have converted the courts from the ‘least dangerous’ branch of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers to the most dangerous.” (From a chapter titled “Making Some Americans More Equal Than Others,” about the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law)

_ “This is liberal law in a nutshell. History and tradition count for nothing; the language of the Constitution itself counts for little; the only criterion is whether a ruling will advance the liberal agenda.” (From the chapter “Ozzie and Harriet Are Dead,” about abortion and the attack on the traditional family.)

_ ” … The Constitution died on April 18, 1990, as a direct result of the liberal pursuit of racial ‘equality.'” (From the chapter “Taxation for Tolerance,” about school desegregation and desegregation rulings that allow judges to impose taxes.)

Press coverage notes that “other judges and lawyers have said Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit” but Dierker is defending his book, saying he broke no rules and that his open disdain for feminists and liberals in no way makes him unfit for the bench: 

Dierker said he is always fair in the courtroom. “Conservative judges are much more likely to know where their biases are and how to draw the line,” he said.

Dierker writes that the views in the book are “personal, and should not be construed as any indication of how I would rule on any case coming before me. No public resources were used in the preparation of this work. The use of my title is strictly for identification.”

Considering that the Right loves nothing more than complaining and picking fights over the issue of judges, Dierker can probably take solace in the fact that if he is in some way reprimanded or punished for his book, he will always be able to translate his newfound notoriety into speaking engagements at the next “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith Conference” or “Values Voters Summit.”