— because let’s face it, that’s how the liberals sell it, and more and more, “sophisticated” Republicans who claim to be conservative scoff right along with the left — here’s another example of whining by some orthodox religious kook upset that he wasn’t permitted to wear his kippah in court:
A Jewish man was barred from participating in his own trial after a circuit court judge removed him from the courtroom for insisting on wearing a head covering in keeping with his Jewish beliefs.
Stephen Orr, a resident of Chesapeake, Va., was tried in absentia and found guilty, after a Circuit Court judge denied his request to wear a hat, or “kippah,” into the courtroom in keeping with a Jewish mandate that persons wear a head covering at all times. The judge allegedly based his denial on the fact that other Jewish litigants appear in court without a head covering.
— I’m sure some Scots show up in court as litigants without kilts. Just as I’m sure some tranny hookers will show up without the falsies and the bad wigs. Meaning that a de facto norm is created, except when it isn’t. So the logic here is…well, there doesn’t really appear to be any, does there? Just something rather arbitrary.
Having said that, I do wish to remain hip and be considered one of the more nuanced mouthbreathers, so let me ostentatiously proclaim that religious people whining about their rights being trampled on bothers me. I mean, it’s just so Jim and Tammy Faye, you know? Why can’t they just shut up and concentrate on fiscal policy? For the MODERATES AND INDEPENDENTS!
“As Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Yom Kippur, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar, we would do well to remember that in many parts of this country, the right to freely practice one’s religious beliefs remains an uphill battle, and that’s true no matter what your religious beliefs, whether you’re a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, which has filed an appeal on Orr’s behalf.
In coming to Orr’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that under Virginia’s Religious Freedom statute and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, any requirement that Orr remove his hat in violation of his religious beliefs is enforceable only if the court’s no-hat rule serves a compelling state interest, and no such interest justified the demand that Orr violate his beliefs.
Not so! The hat signifies that the wearer answers to a higher power than some Virginia judge drunk on his own power. And we can’t have that! If the Lord wants to take part in the trial, he’d better dress his ass up as George Burns and take the goddamn stand his own self!
Rutherford attorneys also assert that Orr’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to confront witnesses and present evidence on his behalf were violated by his trial in absentia because Orr’s wearing of a hat would not have significantly disrupted his trial.
Commenting on the incident, Rabbi Aryeh Spero called Orr’s ouster from the courtroom “outrageous,” noting that the kippah is worn at all times by religious Jews. Thus, Spero said, a practicing Jew wouldn’t don the kippah to “make a statement” – he’d always have it on during his daily activities.
Spero also noted that wearing the kippah poses no disrespect to the judge or distraction to the court – and does not impose on another person to make any type of accommodation to the religious practice or belief.
Well, maybe not. But it’s hardly worth bitching about, is it? I mean, take the damn thing off and you get a fair trial. Refuse and you don’t. It’s quite simple.
He should have researched the judge and told him it was a beanie for a fraternity at his college (which would just happen to be the one the judge attended).
The judge allegedly based his denial on the fact that other Jewish litigants appear in court without a head covering.
Good flippin lord, but how did that stupidity get said out-loud without immediate, and loud, mocking laughter and finger pointing?
I would have loved to see the shrieks and howls if something similar had been said by a judge toward a woman wearing a hijab.
The judge allegedly based his denial on the fact that other Jewish litigants appear in court without a head covering.
No offense, but how would Hizzoner have been able to tell? Many of the times I have seen men wearing them, they seemed to have chosen muted colors that blended with their hair color and style. They are not like Elton John sunglasses.
the judge has a name he is named Randall D. Smith
Good thing he doesn’t have any coercive power to force people to obey his every whim, right? {/sarc}
the complaint says he wasn’t wearing a kippy thing per se but rather a baseball cap
I’m confuzzled
If I called the tail on my dog a “leg”, how many legs would she have?
A: Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it so, especially when one realizes that one might have ended one’s career with a civil liberty lawsuit that will cost one a taxpayer-funded pension.
Truly strange. In my jurisdiction, judges are accommodating by not setting trials on the high holidays or Fridays if they think the case is likely to go past sundown.
instead of a ballcap he should have covered his head with a hoodie.
Jeff wrote:
Ah!…but are the trannys allowed to tuck ‘it’???
I read HF’s link to the defendant’s brief on appeal. The statement of facts indicates the judge referred to the head covering as a “ballcap.” Unless the judge is a complete idiot, which is certainly a possibility, it’s difficult to refuse a ballcap with a kippah. Additionally, the defendant did not inform the judge of his faith restrictions until after the trial and not when first ordered to remove his hat.
As indicated above, its difficult to imagine a judge not knowing what a kippeh is. They are not uncommon, especially among lawyers. The “ballcap” reference and the failure to bring it up early is strange to me. I agree, if the judge refused to allow the defendant to participate in a trial with the obvious evidence of a kippah, then he deserves our scorn. But if it was a ballcap, even if the defendant was sincere, I’m willing to cut the judge a little slack for thinking someone was trying to con him.
FWIW, I would have sent the defendant home to get a proper kippeh and not a ballcap to see if he was sincere. I would not have tried him in abstentia.
Many orthodox Jews wear ballcaps instead of yarmulkahs. The head covering is the thing.
The rest is a matter of style.
b… bu… but… what about rules? Doesn’t the state have a compelling interest in making sure that there are rules, and that the rules are followed? I mean, if we don’t follow the rules, which of course, must not only be the same for everyone, but must be applied rigourously and without exception –regardless of the circumstances! Because if we don’t treat everyone exactly the same way, no matter how different they are, somebody might be made to feel inferior. And we don’t want anyone to feel like they’re being treated unfairly because they’re different.
Diversity. Celebrate it, bitches.
If that’s the case, then I agree with shermlaw. If the headcovering is the thing, then that headcovering ought to be appropriate for court. Ballcaps aren’t.
Many orthodox Jews wear ballcaps instead of yarmulkahs. The head covering is the thing. The rest is a matter of style.
I understand. The problem is, courts are faced with many, many people who do not respect the proceedings. In my jurisdiction, the rule is no hats–women included– and no shorts, among others. I always tell my clients to dress for church or a funeral. If the judge or the bailiff instructs a number of people to remove ballcaps, but allows one for religious reasons, there could be a problem. Better to wear something immediately recognizable as a religious accessory than cause the problem by wearing something which is ambiguous in its religious significance.
Unless the man was wearing a wedding yarmulke, what’s the problem? Most of them are damned near invisible.
I can see a Jewish man preferring a ball cap to yarmulkah so as to not call attention to themselves in public – where being ‘obviously’ Jewish is an incitement to hatred by some. Having been in hundreds of Federal Court hearings, wearing a hat into court is a HUGE no-no, but yarmulkahs aren’t even noted. If the defendant was told to remove his hat and he stated it was for religious purposes at the time, I’d be all in his favor. After the fact…..it appears to be contrived, but most people are NERVOUS in court and the request and subsequent events might have flustered him.
The head covering is the thing.
The rest is a matter of style.
I love those fur hats the Hassidic Jews wear.
[…] Judge Refuses to Let Jewish Man Wear Kippah in Court […]