Ah, the state of modern-day liberalism, replete with hypocrisies.
“There’s free speech for all — except those who disagree with you. There’s tolerance for everyone — except the opposition. There’s every kind of diversity — except diversity of thought.”
Couldn’t have said it — or written it — better myself.
I have been following one court case in particular the past few months. It is a defamation case against Mark Steyn, conservative writer and commentator, and National Review. The plaintiff is named Michael Mann.
On Tuesday, a site, Climate Science Watch, provided an update on the case and recent rulings by the current judge.
So, I did a little poking around and thought to offer up my prefunctory research for any readers. Well, all comments are moderated, and apparently mine did not fit the narrative. My post was banished, to wherever censored comments go. So, I am adding what I found to my own blog.
The folks at Climate Science Watch were organized to challenge those who take on the global warming crowd. They do not like opposing views.
The previous judge in the case was a woman named Natalia Combs Greene.1 She is an authority figure. She is not supposed to be the target of criticism and mockery, apparently.
After a reasonably balanced introduction, Climate Science Watch goes on to include a lot of opinionated commentary, particularly on Steyn. They did not like “Steyn’s beyond-snarky criticism of the former judge” nor “accusing an opposing attorney of fraud.”
Well, I was curious. Did this judge, Natalia Combs Greene, deserve some snark? That would be my guess. Steyn is usually quite fair. “Let’s find out,” I told myself.
So, I hit the Google. Sure enough, Judge Combs Greene was a disaster on the bench. She has even been publicly reprimanded by her peers.
On one review site, she had the lowest possible score from the general public who rated her. Attorneys also rated her very low and offered some pointed commentary.
One criminal defense lawyer said that she is “pleasant but doesn’t make sound rulings.” She is “verbose” and “talks too much when she should be listening. That is why her calendar never runs in a timely fashion.”
That may be the kindest one.
“Absolutely the worst judge in the DC Superior Court,” another wrote.
“Inconsistent, illogical and exceedingly weak intellectually. Results-oriented, whatever the law may actually be.”
“She believes that she has a keen knowledge of the law, but, in fact, she has a poor knowledge of the law.”
The negative comments go on-and-on. Now, mind you, I didn’t post these quotes on ClimateScienceWatch.org.
I simply wrote:
“Judge Combs-Greene appears to be less than stellar.”2
And copied three links:
There is a heckuva lot more negative out there. I thought my one sentence was rather modest.
But I guess my minimalist response was too much for the guys at Climate Science Watch.
Rick of Climate Science Watch says in the comment section, “We’re not into ‘shutting down’ anyone’s free speech.”
Except mine, of course, and Mark Steyn’s too.
1. To hyphenate or not to hyphenate. I decided to not add a hyphen to the judge’s surnames based on documents from the DC Superior Court, which did not include it.
2. I did include the hyphen in my comment to Climate Science Watch because that site is using it in her name.