That is certainly an interesting development.

What is with this business of referring to attorneys general as "General"? It seems to me that an attorney general is a kind of attorney, not a kind of general (like a sergeant major is a sergeant, not a major), but I have frequently heard this usage. Is it just an affectation, or is there some etymology behind it?

Truly appalling.

The NY FedSoc events always seem to have at least one "that guy" every time. There's some guy in loud plaid pants that goes on monologues during question time.

What some of our elected (and appointed) officials seem to forget is that you ARE your job, all day, every day. Just like folks in the military, although they seem to "get it" while those who are supposed to be the ones in charge (civilians) don't. Odd, eh?

Heck, military people will be tagged as military for the rest of their lives if they do something wrong. How many times have you heard, "John Doe, a Vietnam vet, is accused of..... blah, blah, blah" in the news? Well, this joker should realize it applies to him, as well. If he doesn't like it, resign!

I agree with you, I fully expect a judge to keep his opinions to himself, except in a courtroom where it is his/her job to render opinions. He is "never" a "civilian." Not anymore, anyway....... He signed that away when he accepted the appointment. My "opinion." :) :)

What a coward.

Well, while I can't condone Justice Sanders' outburst during the speech, I would like to mention that his opinions are probably the most well reasoned, logically consistent of any of our current Justices. And I say that as someone who frequently disagrees with him. He is an extremely valuable member of the court and it would be a shame if his extra curricular activities got him in hot water with the electorate, causing him to lose his seat.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but is the Attorney General a tyrant? Tyrant-esque? Or not?

Justice Sander's denial is really pathetic, as is The Olympian's coverage of this incident. He says that he wasn't in the room when the AG collapsed, but he issues a no comment on the question of heckling. What does The Olympian write? It has an article and a blog post, one with the title, "State Justice says he wasn't at Mukasey's Speech" and the other with the title, "Justice Sanders says he didn't heckle A.G. during speech." Um, what? That's not what he said at all. He's playing word games. Hopefully that paper will do the right thing and change its articles to better fit reality.

Well, I "guess" I'm a "huge" "idiot".

To add to my previoius post, The Olympian's coverage made no mention of his dodging the question by playing word games over heckling. They simply said that he denied being there when he collapsed and issued the equivalent of a no comment on the question of heckling. From that, they got the two headlines I posted. Poor journalism on The Olympian's part.

There are so many definitions for "general" one wonders a bit. Could the title simply be intended to mean:

across-the-board, all-around, all-embracing, all-inclusive, catholic, comprehensive, extensive, far-reaching, generic, global, inclusive, infinite, limitless, miscellaneous, overall, panoramic, sweeping, taken as a whole, total, ubiquitous, unconfined, universal, unlimited, or worldwide?

And have nothing whatsoever to do with a quasi-military rank?

A judge should be better than that blah blah blah.

If you give a speech at a university today, and you are either conservative or controversial, you can expect to be heckled at least during part of the speech.

If you are invited to testify before congress, and are conservative, military, or controversial in some way, you can expect the proceedings to be disrupted.

These two are so commonplace as to be expected-if, at colleges, you aren't heckled in some way, it would be evidence of passivity or indifference on the part of the student body.

If you attend a musical performance, you probably have a 50% likelihood of being lectured on your political views.

If you attend a professional lecture, you have a similar likelihood (I once went to a medical lecture by a visiting doctor at a medical college, and was told how to vote on immigration during the introduction).

The judge may have been wrong, but he wasn't uniquely, or shockingly, wrong. He was obeying the cultural norm of our times. I'm frankly kind of glad an old conservative (or libertarian) guy in a stodgy profession has the cahunas to act like he really cares. About the only profession that still has an old-fashioned sense of dignity is the military, and I wish they'd grow a pair as well.

Sk

Kellen Kooistra: Could you clarify why, if his opinions are well reasoned and logically consistent, do you disagree with them? Do you disagree with the law in his cases but agree that, as long as they are the law, he is right to uphold them? Or something else? (Not being snide, just interested!)

Not to be cavalier either, but this whole situation (happily resolved, it turns out) could be easily translated into a political thriller, where a hapless judge is talked into shouting at a speaker in order to distract from an assassin with a blowdart.

Decorum issues aside, the dog in question's spots are plain for all to see.

Happyshooter,

Because general in Attorney and Surgeon General is an adjective referring to the area of expertise whereas the general in Major General is a noun and the major is the adjective referring to the type of general. I think.

Dave D:

..Certainly this doesn't constitute " good behaviour ", upon which Judge Sanders continued employment should depend. His weasel worded denial is self descriptive of his character.

He is not a federal judge, and neither the phrase "good behaviour" nor any variants on it appear in Washington's state constitution. If Sanders is opposed for re-election, his opponent will be free to bring this incident to voters' attention.

About the only profession that still has an old-fashioned sense of dignity is the military, and I wish they'd grow a pair as well.

I'm chuckling thinking about the probable response of anyone who's ever actually served in the military being told to their face that they haven't "grown a pair" because they don't heckle in public in a regular basis.

Both titles in the US usage were inherited from the English practice where the two chief law officers were and still are HM Attorney-General and HM Solicitor-General (incidentally both usually members of the bar rather than solicitors). Both positions go to members of either house who are also qualified lawyers. The Solicitor-General is simply the Attorney-General's deputy. Both concern themselves primarily with giving legal advice to the cabinet when asked and superintending the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecutors (i.e, the prosecution side of the criminal justice system).

There used to be a tradition that the Attorney-General always led for the Crown when a murderer was prosecuted, that tradition is happily no longer with us as quite a number of them were not particularly good on their feet.

UK Government civil litigation is handled by the Treasury Solicitor although some of the bigger departments have their own solicitor's department.

In Court the Judge addresses the AG as "Mr Attorney" (i.e we drop the "general" part of the title of the office while SCOTUS seems to adopt the converse practice.

justice sanders is the most "anti-police" justice i have ever seen.

i read at least a summary of every WA supreme court case and sanders is incredibly predictable. he sells himself as a libertarian, but i think that's a stretch.

i cannot remember ANY decision he has ever made that was not anti-state/police and pro-defendant when it comes to search/seizure, miranda, etc.

in that respect, he is very reliable.

very predictable.

JonC: "...I'm chuckling thinking about the probable response of anyone who's ever actually served in the military being told to their face that they haven't "grown a pair" because they don't heckle in public in a regular basis...."

I was going to avoid it, but since you mentioned it..... I suppose he thinks that we should heckle the Commander-in-Chief if we don't like what he says, right? Let's see..... what's that called? Can we say "insubordination?" Sure we can! Grow a pair, indeed.

The irony is that Mukasey's speech was criticizing people who level generic epithets at the Bush administration and expect to be taken seriously. From the speech:

For example, earlier this year, the head of a legal organization that prides itself on what it calls its "nonpartisan approach to the law" gave a speech condemning what he called "the oppressive, relentless, and lawless attack by our own government on the rule of law and our liberty." According to this person, we live now in a -- "time of repression" where the "word 'Patriot' names a statute that stifles liberty," and where we face "assaults by our government on constitutional rights, the Separation of Powers, and the Geneva Conventions." You can practically hear the rumble of tanks in the background.
It is interesting -- and telling -- that even in the published, written version of these remarks by a lawyer, the references and footnotes are not to statutory texts, the Constitution, treaties, or laws. Instead, the author relied on such authorities as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Review of Books. This style of criticism can be called many things -- provocative perhaps, or evidence that the author could be regarded by some as well-read -- but what it cannot be called is a reasoned legal critique.

I don't recall at exactly what point Mukasey was interrupted, but I seem to recall it was somewhere around that part, as if to prove Mukasey's point.

I'm not against dissent, and I don't think Judge Sanders deserves any sanction other than general ridicule or scorn. The reaction from the crowd was appropriate--no violence, no restraint, just admonitions to sit down and shut up.

But it seems clear that the heckler was him.

The actual quotes from him say only that he wasn't there when Mukasey collapsed (which was several minutes after the interruption), not that he wasn't at the speech at the beginning or that he wasn't the one who stood up and heckled.

Better excerpt here:

I focus on these types of criticisms not because they are so extraordinary, but because they are unfortunately so typical of people who substitute their policy views for any serious legal analysis and who would turn a good-faith legal disagreement into a battle over the purported existence or non-existence of the rule of law. The irony, of course, is that the law requires a serious analysis of text, precedent, and history, and it does not serve the rule of law to substitute a smug sense of outrage for that kind of analysis.

"It does not refer to a general (officer) who is an attorney."

No. It refers to an Attorney who is a General.

Attorney General and Surgeon General are military in origen and therefore like the Major General, all are Generals.

Actually, the Surgeon General of the United States is a vice admiral.

Either way, "General," is a proper reference. BTW, The Postmaster General is also a General.

As usual, Seinfeld has this one covered: "In addition to being a postmaster, I'm a general. And we both know it's the job of a general to by God get things done. So maybe you can understand why I get a little irritated when somebody calls me away from my golf."

No. It refers to an Attorney who is a General.

Fixed that for you.

krs, it looks like Mukasey was being disingenuous when he said:

It is interesting -- and telling -- that even in the published, written version of these remarks by a lawyer, the references and footnotes are not to statutory texts, the Constitution, treaties, or laws. Instead, the author relied on such authorities as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Review of Books.

The speech in question was given by Michael Traynor to the American Law Institute. The transcript has no references or footnotes of any kind. The phrases "Times", "Post" and "New York Review" do not appear anywhere in the transcript.

And why does a Lieutenant General outrank a Major General when a Major outranks a Lieutenant?

As I understand it the rank was originally Sergeant-Major General, but that the sergeant was eventually dropped.

I can report that Justice Sanders did confirm that he was indeed the heckler at the Mukasey speech, even if only through hearsay evidence.

I attended a Federalist Society leadership dinner following the events of the last day of the convention. Justice Sanders and another Washington Supreme Court justice were seated at my table. I did not speak to Justice Sanders during the course of the evening. After all the others at our table had left, I spoke with one of the gentlemen seated next to Sanders throughout the dinner. After we talked about other matters, this gentleman told me that one of the first things he had brought up at the beginning of his conversation with Sanders was the issue of the heckler, to which Sanders reportedly replied, "That was me." As I understand it, the subject was dropped at that point.

Again, I did not hear this conversation myself. I wonder if it is cloaked with sufficient indicia of reliability...

I wonder what people will heckle a real tyrant with when one shows up? I think some folks have defined that word down a bit. No matter. Heckling won't be allowed then anyway.

Anyone interested in the side issue of whether Mukasey was telling the truth in his speech, as opposed to the more interesting issue of the heckler's identity, may wish to check out Scott Horton's analysis.

To be sure, Mukasey is characterizing events he wasn't present during; but he doesn't seem to have been very curious about finding out what happened.

So, you call him general, too.

Well played!

To KenB, Semper Fi :)

...Anon21, thank's for the tip. Washington State judges do not serve, as federal judges do, under a requirement of good behaviour. I looked it up. Justice Sanders may retain his job despite his jerkdom.

Michelle Malkin says on her site that Sanders (who she knows personally) confirmed to the Seattle times that he was the heckler:

In the initial days after the event, Sanders, when questioned by other reporters, danced around whether he was the person who shouted at Mukasey. He wouldn’t confirm it, nor would he deny it.

But on Tuesday, Sanders told The Seattle Times that he’d simply reached the point where he couldn’t remain silent.

“Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine there would be any mention of this in the press,” he said. “But here we are.”

The state’s Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to be “dignified” toward those they deal with “in their official capacity.”

Asked if his outburst might violate that code, Sanders said: “Well, it’s so open-ended and vague, maybe someone would think that it could apply. I don’t know. I think it’s a free-speech activity. In my mind this had nothing to do with my role as a judge.”

It interests me that on matters of vital concern, and diverging opinion, most people here think it OK to interrupt a speech with applause, but deem it a great breach of etiquette to shout "Tyrant."

The shouter, in this case, no more interrupted the speech than the applauders did.

Had the shouter continued at length, then he could be said to be heckling, and disruptive. But one outburst, or two, is no more disruptive than applause is.

It is possible that we live in "too nice" a time. And, from what I can tell, Mukasey's speech could be characterized as a very clever cover for tyrannical practice. He belittled opponents' attacks on Bush admin civil liberties practices, on questions of how they go about making the attacks. Interesting. But Sanders apparently saw it as cover, and was appalled at the audience going along. So he made his little protest.

I probably wouldn't have done the same. I would have gone home and written a blog post dissecting the speech. But few would have read it. Justice Sanders at least got his opinion out to more people.

For my part, I do not applaud speakers during speeches. I consider this a vile, herdish behavior that diminishes the intellectual appraisal of the speech's content. It turns it into a kind of groupthink exercise that itself justifies outbursts like "boo" and "hiss," not to mention more Sandersian epithets.

It interests me that on matters of vital concern, and diverging opinion, most people here think it OK to interrupt a speech with applause, but deem it a great breach of etiquette to shout "Tyrant."

Yeah it’s almost like most people think that when you’re attending an event with an invited guest speaker, that there’s a difference between polite applause and yelling epitaphs at him from the audience.

I think it’s called “manners.”

So, you'd be polite to a Marxist defending the liquidation of the kulaks? A defender of sharia law as it could apply to the U.S.? Interesting.

If manners allows a crowd of Americans to consistently sanction the undermining of the rule of law, then perhaps manners should sometimes be abridged. Some things are more important than politeness.

I'm not saying I would have done it. I'm not saying that the AG is a tyrant. But, considering what the Bush admin has been allowed to get away with, I am more than open to a few shouts of opposition. The road to hell being paved with good intentions, and manners being the most obvious expression of good intentions in everyday life, perhaps we should see that manners -- in the sense of "always being polite" -- is no sure standard.

thorley:

yelling epitaphs at him

Depending on things we might learn in the future, it's possible that Mukasey (and others) could indeed end up with epitaphs not too different from the epithet issued by Sanders.