Canon 2, Section C of the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia says:
A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.
And in last week’s C-Ville Weekly, Meg McEvoy had an article about Debbie Wyatt that said:
In 1986, Wyatt was working on a rape case with co-counselors Dan Atkins and the bow-tied Jim Camblos, now the Albemarle Commonwealth’s Attorney and one-time president of the Red-Land Club.
The Red-Land Club, as is the theme of the article, is a professional organization for attorneys near Court Square that arbitrarily and invidiously excludes women. Thus Camblos, as a past president and presumed current member, is disqualified to hold the judgeship that he’s seeking.
Three snaps in Z formation.
um, why can’t he just quit the club? it doesn’t say that a judge shall never have held membership…yadda yadda.
Plus, what is invidious discrimination? Is membership to Augusta Country Club bad enough?
Great questions. I am incapable of answering them. The entire contents of my brain on the matter are dumped in this blog entry. Here’s where I hope the big boys (read as: journalists) will figure out what’s what. :)
I assume this is just an FYI post and not something that is designed to get people upset at Camblos. I’m no fan of his, but this is PC at its absolute worst.
The Hook article led me to believe that there are judges in the group already…
Granted, the quotes are both about the 1980s.
Great point.
Sounds to me like this Red-Land Club is trouble all around. I’m told that it’s all-white, too.
Come on Waldo, this is quite a bit of a reach, don’t you think. If they disqualified all lawyers who were members of all white, all black, all male, all female, all Jewish etc. clubs or organizations, by history, we would have never had any judges. If I am a lawyer and serve on the board of my college Frat. (all male) am I disquaified. If I am a black man and I am a in the House of Reps. in Virginia and a member of the Black Leg. Assn. am I disqualifed?
I do not think that this membership disqualifies Camblos from being a judge. Now his low IQ and poor record does disqualify him
Sounds to me like the worst case scenario is that Camblos would have to resign from his group before starting the new job. No, there are plenty of good reasons why Jim Camblos should be run out of town on a rail but this isn’t one of them.
You’ll need to take that up with the state courts — those are their rules, not mine.
Personally, though, I’d draw the line at whether or not there is a purpose to that discrimination. Catholic churches discriminate against Jews by not letting them serve as church elders, but that’s a useful line to draw. Fraternities discriminate against women but, again, they’ve made a strong case that doing so is fundamental to their existence.
An (apparently) all-white, all-male attorneys club in modern-day Charlottesville? Explain that one to me.
Not according to the Canons themselves, which state in the preamble:
“The Canons are designed to provide guidance to judges and candidates for judicial office…”
My emphasis, of course.
Psst…Catholic churches don’t have elders. I’m pretty sure most Protestant ones do. Sorry to be picky. ;)
I wouldn’t want to see Camblos on the bench for other reasons, but I have to say that I’m enjoying this talk about The Red-Land Club.
I think private clubs are interesting. I got to go into one in NYC for a meeting and thought it was beautiful, but it was definitely bizarre being confronted at the door because I was a woman trying to enter the mahogany lined halls of their Central Park South building.
Members of most private clubs get top notch athletic facilities, dining rooms, spaces for holding events, hotel rooms and reciprocal agreements with clubs all over the world. Red-Land members get to smoke and play cards with the guy half way down this page (couldn’t resist…it came up when I Googled). Seems kind of silly.
I wanted to say “governing muckity-mucks,” but figured “elders” might be a nicer way to put it. :)
An (apparently) all-white, all-male attorneys club in modern-day Charlottesville? Explain that one to me.
I have one word for you: FARMINGTON
Is Farmington still that way?
There was a pretty good article in The Cavalier Daily about students in the 70s protesting President Hereford’s membership there.
After reading the article, I mentioned it to someone I thought might have been a student at the time. She didn’t remember the controversy with Hereford, but she did tell me that she couldn’t attend a classmate’s wedding reception at Farmington because she isn’t white. Kind of pathetic, isn’t it?
I am a past member of the Redland (it IS NOT hyphenated) Club and found nothing wrong there – some poker, a quiet drink, a little pool.
I am not an attorney nor have I ever been one.
Waldo, are you willing to concede that your headline is misleading?
And please don’t summon In Living Color in your partisan rants.
Let’s not do that again. “Judge Peatross Eaten by Giant Space Monkeys”?
2 points for getting the In Living Color reference. -2 points for believing that sexism is inherent to Republicans. Looks like a wash.
Please. If he were a dem, would you really be trumpeting his membership as grounds for disqualification?
Your only way out of this is to provide a sample dialogue on the issue from “Men on Politics”.
You must be new here if you think my opposition to Camblos is based on partisanship. :)
I don’t care what party the man is a member of. It is, in his case, totally and utterly irrelevant. I’ve been writing about his dangerous and ridiculous gaffes here since long before I had the faintest idea of his partisan affiliation. Just read a bit. I’m a Democrat, absolutely, but you’ll find that I’m as quick to defend Republicans as I am Democrats, and as quick to call out Democrats as I am Republicans. But, again, in the case of Camblos party doesn’t have the first thing to do with it — the problem with him is at a far simpler level than party.
But you’ll note that any attorney that is a member of this club is apparently disqualified, if my reading of this is correct. I have no idea of what the partisan affiliations of any other applicants are, but they would all be equally affected.
I’m not that new, I just don’t read that often. But every single attack/rant/rave on this site is about some Republican. From Rob Schilling to Jerry Kilgore to George Allen to Bush…and everywhere in between.
If you can point to one blog entry (or certainly a “attack/rant/rave”) about Jerry Kilgore, George Allen, or George Bush on this website, I’ll give you a hearty handshake and a clap on the back.
That’s a trick. I’ve never written about any of them. I think I’ve acknowledged their existence as is necessary over the course of writing about what’s going on in C’ville. I did once criticize the Progress editorial board for endorsing President Bush for reelection, but that was going after them for being inconsistent, not so much President Bush.
Perhaps you’re confusing this with another cvillenews.com. ;)
I think you both are right, Shilling, Kilgore and Allen are sorry, sorry men, who better belong in 1851 and use fear and hate to bolster their own image. And yes the headline reminded me of THE ONION meeting THE STAR MAG
Perhaps I have mistaken posts that I read on your personal blog for those written here…
Aaahhh, yes, that would certainly make sense. But, what with being a contributing editor to Campaigns & Elections Magazine, I’m in the business of being partisan on that site. :) And as my regular readers will testify, I regularly defend Republicans and call out Democrats, too, as the occasion arises.