Is That Legal?

It's exceptionally offensive, to be sure, but I think that in context it's also pretty clearly "political hyperbole," and thus protected speech, under Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). In that case, a draft protester said "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J." Surely Vieria's statements, as odious as they were, were no more "true threats" than the conditional in the Watts case?

Evelyn, I didn't say there's enough there now to prosecute him. I said there's enough at least to investigate--to get the full context of the statement, and anything else Vieira might be saying (or doing) these days on the subject. There's a difference.

More distressing, from my perspective, is what type of person was present at this conference. As the Post reports, two US representatives (Akin (R-MO) and Smith (R-TX)) and aides to two US Senators (Hatch (R-UT) and Coburn (R-OK)) were present. What are we to make of this if they don't immediately condemn these comments?

More here

Investigation is a good start, but I would report him for professional misconduct in his capacity as a lawyer, depending on how his state's bar feels about his conduct.

ABA Model Rule 8.2(a) states "A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer..."

and Model Rule 8.4(d) notes that "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to...engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."

As a lawyer, Mr. Vieira is an "officer of the legal system" in the state where he is admitted. As an officer of the legal system, Mr. Vieira should conduct himself with some basic level of respect for that system.

Promoting some Stalinist "final solution" for judges whose views Mr. Vieira disagrees with hardly upholds respect for the legal system, even in a spirit of challenging the status quo. The goal here is to destroy the court's legitimacy, and lawyers are supposed to be bound by rules of professional conduct to mitigate this sort of bad behavior.

All legalese and issues aside, this is plain immoral. This man's comments are harsh and simply insane. What is the world to think when high-ranking political figures of the "free world" are quoting Stalin? It's ridiculous and unacceptable. Does Vieira even know how serious Josef's crimes were? I'm disgusted and appalled.

The Stalinist quote by itself really disturbs me, the way it's phrased with such sheer admiration. Chills.

But what really blows my mind is that just prior to that he accuses Kennedy of embracing Leninist principles. Communism bad. But wait -- authoritarian Communism is good?

Seriously, I can't understand why nobody's head exploded in the room out of sheer cognitive dissonance.

Salon offers more detail on the meeting, including some additional context around the quote:

Vieira said, "Here again I draw on the wisdom of Stalin. We're talking about the greatest political figure of the 20th century...He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty. 'No man, no problem.'"

The audience laughed, and Vieira repeated it. "'No man, no problem.' This is not a structural problem we have. This is a problem of personnel."

While Mr. Vieira has a right to free speech, I think this tells you a bit about his character. He is not just quoting out of thin air... he genuinely admires Stalin.

If you are going to list accomplished political figures of the 20th century with absolutely no regard for their crimes, a few other names come to mind. Well, mostly just one.

Evelyn, I didn't say there's enough there now to prosecute him. I said there's enough at least to investigate--to get the full context of the statement, and anything else Vieira might be saying (or doing) these days on the subject. There's a difference.

I would be very careful in granting any Congressional or judicial power to investigate someone based on their speech. At one time, Congress did have that power through the House Un-American Activities Committee (1945-1975), which as any educated American knows was used not to pass legislation but to publicly embarass those whom the Committee determined were enemies.

As someone on the hard libertarian Right, I would LOVE it if Congress once again had this power. Believe me, we would use it in spades against the socialist Left. But I think given how both sides would abuse this kind of power, it's best that it is left out of the national toolbag. Public exposure, courtesy of the First Amendment, is the best medicine for both sides to use against each other.

"As someone on the hard libertarian Right, I would LOVE it...."

You make no sense. If you're a libertarian, you don't want the Congress to have this power at all.

Eric's April 9th posting is right on the money! It is so troubling that I notified the US Marshals Office at the DOJ. I don't expect a direct reply, but such statements should be most troubling to any American, wherever their political loyalties might be.

NEVER I have advocated any act of violence against any Supreme Court Justice. Neither would I condone such actions by anyone.
My reference to Stalin in the address that is being misrepresented on "Is That Legal" was to the point that many judges today are operating according to the principles of "democratic centralism" and "situational ethics" that characterized Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism...and for that reason should be removed from office...BUT BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS OF IMPEACHMENT, about which I wrote in detail in my recent book, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary.
To suggest anything else is character assassination, pure and simple.
Edwin Vieira

First of all, Even the the most brutal of all dictators can have moments of wisdom. It is there evil purpose that seperates them from the morals of society. They take there wisdom and use is it for atrocities. I personally see nothing wrong with embracing a moment of wisdom from anyone no matter how evil that person is. Our own government financed the imporation of thousands of Nazi scientists right after WWII becuase our governemnt wanted to know how Hitler was able to control the masses the way he did. These scientists got plush jobs right in our own government. If there is any chastising to be done is to be done with our own government not someone who is exercising his freedom of speech and speaking his mind. And just becuase he is a member of the bar does not mean he gives up any of those unalianable rights secured to him. You should be hailing Mr. Vieira for understanding what his freedoms are. It is our civic DUTY to criticize our government when they do something wrong or when they step outside the consitutional boundries that We the People have drawn. Mr. Vieira was referring to removing Judges through the legal process who step outside their constitutional boundries not through murder. The Stalinist quote makes sense when you look at the way Mr. Vieira is using it. "No man, No Problem" It makes sense to me. Take the man out of the job who is causing the problem. And you have no more problem. I really think people need to stop and think and use some common sense before making judgments against people.

I feel compelled to respond to Ed's post, mainly because it would be a shame to have that completely incoherent abortion of a comment be the last word on Mr.Vieira's little experiment with quoting one of history's most infamous murderers (Stalin greased 10-20 MILLION of his OWN people).

"Even the the [sic] most brutal of all dictators can have moments of wisdom. It is there [sic] evil purpose that seperates [sic] them from the morals of society. They take there [sic] wisdom and use is it [sic] for atrocities."

This is a cheap shot, I know, but you were asking for it. Learn how to spell Ed. People might take you more seriously if you didn’t write like a 3rd grader. Also, I would be wary about where I got my ‘wisdom’ from if I were you. Sure, even autocratic psychopath killers may have great ideas every now and again, but in the future I would suggest taking them with a grain of salt.

“I personally see nothing wrong with embracing a moment of wisdom from anyone no matter how evil that person is.”

Well, Ed, here’s the deal, just because YOU don’t see anything wrong with it, doesn’t mean that it’s not wrong. I don’t care how much ‘faith’ you have that your ‘beliefs’ are true, it does not therefore prove…. well, anything.

“If there is any chastising to be done is [sic] to be done with our own government not someone who is exercising his freedom of speech and speaking his mind.”

You are laboring under a huge misconception if you believe that the 1st amendment protects all speech. For your own edification, you may be interested in reading Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 and Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, among other cases in this long line of 1st amendment jurisprudence. In case your reading skills are as limited as your writing skills, I’ll summarize briefly – your speech is not protected by the 1st amendment when you are inciting other people to violence. If that is the case (and for the sake of time, I’ll spare you the various tests used to determine whether this is low value speech or not), then the government may punish you as long as the law proscribing the speech is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The federal government has an incredibly compelling interest in making sure that their (again, note the proper use of the possessive) judges are not murdered and 18 U.S.C. § 1503, is rationally related to that goal.

“And just because [sic] he is a member of the bar does not mean he gives up any of those unalianable [sic] rights secured to him.”

ABA Model Rule 8.4 (and, keep in mind that the ABA rules only apply to lawyers, which Mr. Vieira is) reads, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to…(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” I don’t know about you, but, I would certainly set forth the argument that murdering judges or maliciously impeaching and prosecuting them because their views are not necessarily your views, would be prejudicial to the administration of justice. The point of all this is that by becoming a lawyer, a profession in which you enjoy a complete monopoly over the supply of legal services (not an insignificant industry), you also take up additional responsibilities – one of which is this notion that lawyer’s are ‘officers of the court.’ At the very least, this is an exhibit of extremely unprofessional behavior.

“It is our civic DUTY to criticize our government when they do something wrong or when they step outside the consitutional [sic] boundries [sic] that We the People have drawn.”

Ed, I’d like to add to your suggested reading list, the constitution (which is not a gospel of the bible… no matter how hard Vieira believes). Article 3 would be a good place to start. It defines the power of the federal judicial power. I would also direct you to Marbury v. Madison. This case is from 1803 and uses a lot of big words so I’ll give you the executive summary – “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” We can use the new-fangled power of ‘reasoning’ then to deduce that it is NOT up to anybody else, in particular crack pot right wing Christian dominionists, to say what the law is.

“’No man, No Problem’ It makes sense to me.”

10 million people Ed, 10 million individual lives extinguished, and that’s the low ball estimate. (Don’t bother trying to reconcile that with a pro-life stance…)

“Take the man out of the job who is causing the problem. And you have no more problem.”

That’s what the Romans thought too. Also, you are assuming that there is a problem, which, no thanks to Mr. Vieira, is still very much open for debate.

“I really think people need to stop and think and use some common sense before making judgments against people.”

Well, there you go, I’ve thought about it and I still think Vieira is a douche bag for what he said.

John,
You may have thought about it- but an equation with ANY of the numbers missing is just, well, incomplete. Ignoring the complete context of Vieira's statements to grasp wildly upon a phrase for the purpose of vilification is transparent to even a high school sophomore.
Masking a personal attack behind voluminous amounts of precedent would not fool the high school kid either. Lots of people on the web seem to have problems with the written language but grasp the concepts well. Oh, yeah, and vice versa.
So, were you present for Vieira's speech? Were you able to detect sarcasm in his phrasing, voice and demeanor? Is there an audio recording?
Are you over 5'5" tall?
The answers to these questions -could- be enlightening.