'Tyranny of Tolerance' author stirs controversy

Ann Knef Jan. 3, 2007, 4:25am

Judge Robert Dierker appeared on Fox News "O'Reilly Factor" Tuesday.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Robert Dierker infuriated critics and inspired supporters when his controversial new book "Tyranny of Tolerance" was released last week.

Dierker's warning of "liberal totalitarianism" permeating the nation's judiciary catapulted him into the national news light, and prompted calls for his ouster.

In 'Tyranny's' first chapter, Dierker writes:

"I have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I cannot in good conscience sit idly by and watch the destruction of that Constitution by a judiciary that is no longer independent. Despite a tradition of silence by judges on such topics, I can no longer keep quiet about what I, as an insider, have seen happening in, and to, our courts. I may be accused of unethical conduct and threatened with professional discipline, as I was in the past. If that is a risk I must take, so be it. Others before me have taken much greater risks in defense of republican government."

Dierker wrote the book after he encountered an unpleasant, "very direct run-in with the tyrants of tolerance," which he describes as "femifascists."

If Social Security is the "third rail" of American politics, then sex is the third rail of American law. Anyone who touches it, except in the manner approved by the tyrants of tolerance, is fried. In this realm, the tyranny of tolerance is best described as rule by the radical feminist cadre of liberalism. Like the rest of the illiberal liberals, femifascists display single-minded devotion to imposing their tyranny on the American people-and will viciously punish those who resist.

An outspoken critic of Dierker's thesis called his book "disturbing."

"I frankly think that it is a shame that this very smart man has lowered himself to name-calling," said Lynn Ricci, president of the Women Lawyers' Association of Greater St. Louis, the Associated Press reported.

"It appears that he's cloaking his own personal preferences against women in alleged legal research and a partial examination of the law," she added.

In the book Dierker explains his experience with "femifascists" that resulted in a judicial complaint filed against him.

In 1998, he ruled against a woman bringing a sexual harassment case against her employer. He dismissed the case stating her claim was not defensible on the basis of "emotional distress," however provided guidelines on how she could construct a case on proper legal grounds.

In his dismissing her complaint, Dierker denounced "sexual harassment police" who "seem oblivious to the First Amendment as they eagerly enlist the courts as censors of words and literature in the workplace."

"More specifically, I noted that it seems clear to everyone 'except for the denizens of the cloud cuckooland of radical feminism' that no court had ever held a sexual advance to be actionable in and of itself. Although I did not expect liberals to applaud my opinion, and I probably expected a certain amount of controversy, I was comfortable with the complete freedom judges have had historically to say what they thought about the law. When writing opinions, especially on issues where precedent is unclear or conflicting, judges have a unique opportunity to criticize the parties' theories and to explain or instruct the public concerning the state of the law."

A complaint was filed against Dierker with the state's judicial discipline commission regarding his opinion in the sexual harassment case.

"In retrospect, I should have been prepared to sue the Discipline Commission to vindicate the absolute right of judges to express their views in their opinions. After all, don't judges have the right and duty to 'say what the law is'? If they can't say what they think, what happens to judicial independence?

"As horrifying as I find the prospect that the tyranny of tolerance can force judges to censor themselves (and conceivably even adjust their rulings) to avoid the liberal hammer, I can't say I hadn't been warned that this possibility existed. But such warnings made no sense to me given the freedom judges have long enjoyed to express their views on the law."

Dierker was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly in a segment of Fox News "O'Reilly Factor" on Tuesday. On the "Factor," Dierker was asked if he is a conservative activist.

"We talk a lot about liberal activism on the bench here," O'Reilly said. "Is there conservative activism? We saw in the Ten Commandments down in Alabama where the chief justice of Alabama said, 'Look, I'm going to defy federal law and I'm going to keep the Ten Commandments up'. That was conservative activism. But is there more liberal activism than conservative activism?"

Dierker replied, "I think activism, almost by definition, goes on the liberal side. The conservatives to the extent that they react in an effort to limit or overrule illegitimate precedent are simply restoring the Constitution to where it was before it was rewritten by judges who feel that the text has no meaning and is subject to reinterpretation, rewriting, you know, at the moment."

From Realitycheck.org, pundit David Usher wrote that the Duke rape case "would never have happened if Prosecutor Mike Nifong had not been trained to pursue feminist jurisprudence in law school."

"Feminist jurisprudence pretends that female allegers are not to be doubted or questioned...

"The 'feminist majority' believes the women are always the victims and men are always the oppressors. The alleged perpetrator must somehow be guilty, even if he proves himself innocent. They continue to monkey with evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. Their goal is to establish a legal system where unverifiable allegations alone are considered sufficient for conviction.

"Judge Dierker is to be greatly commended for his work helping to advance the rule of law and jurisprudence. Pointing out that feminist jurisprudence is radical and damaging to America does not make Judge Dierker the radical. Anyone who files a complaint against him or refuses to have a case heard in his courtroom is an enemy of the very fairness and quality jurisprudence that Judge Dierker strives to achieve."

The excerpts herein have been reprinted with permission from the book THE TYRANNY OF TOLERANCE by Robert H. Dierker, Jr. Copyright © 2006 by Robert H. Dierker, Jr. Published by Crown Forum, a division of Random House, Inc.

More News