Friday, May 27, 2011
Hargrove Federal Bankruptcy Judge Candidate Plans To Resign From Embattled Belle Meade Country Club If Appointed
Posted by Brantley Hargrove on Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:02 PM
Last week the Scene examined the confidential deliberations of the Judicial Council for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and its investigation into Paine's membership at the club. They tackled a two-pronged question: Does Paine's membership violate the judicial code of conduct? And, more to the point, does the club discriminate based on race and gender?
One problem the council identified is that the club, in its century-long history, can boast but a single black non-resident member who lives in Atlanta and seldom visits. The other problem is that women are not eligible to become resident members, which would accord them the right to vote on club affairs, its bylaws say.
The council exonerated Paine and (to a small extent) the club, but by the barest majority, revealing a schism in the 6th Circuit that followed an unmistakably racial path. But if the nearly split council left troubling questions about the club largely unanswered, it clarified one inescapable reality: Membership in the Belle Meade Country Club is a non-starter for Norton and anyone else seeking public office.
"If I'm going to take a public-service role, I shouldn't be painted with that kind of controversy because it wouldn't reflect well on the court," said Norton, who literally helped write the book on bankruptcy law — his father, William L. Norton Jr., is the force behind the Norton Bankruptcy Law Library, to which the younger Norton has contributed as writer and editor — and has been a member of the club for roughly 20 years.
Asked if he would resign if appointed to the bench Paine will vacate when he retires at the end of this year, Norton replied succinctly: "No doubt."
"If they see fit to appoint me, I'll make that fairly clear," he continued. After the jump, a list of the current candidates.
Barbara Dale Holmes — Nashville, TN
Randal Steven Mashburn — Nashville, TN
William Neal McBrayer — Brentwood, TN
William LaFayette Norton III — Nashville, TN
Marie Kimberly Stagg — Nashville, TN
Charles M. Walker — Antioch, TN
Wendy Michelle Warren — Nashville, TN
Comments (37)
Showing 1-37 of 37
Does Belle Meade country club have any homosexual or cross-dressing members? I hope Pith is investigating that.
like
dislikeThis is reminiscent of Martha Burk's jihad against the Augusta National Golf Club. I suppose that one could argue that it is invidious discrimination to not accept people based on gender and race into BMCC or Augusta National. But just how harmful can that be to someone who has the social, economic or political prominence to get into the club and the disposable income required to stay there.
Don't we have other instances of discrimination that impact the less affluent or less powerful members of various minorities?
Norton III is offering to make a wonderful sacrifice. Particularly when one realizes he'll be swapping membership in Belle Meade's aggregation for the Bohemian Grove. A substantial step up, I think. Bohemian Grove's prob'ly got homosexual and cross-dressing members too, Mikechance. None of us common folk are likely to find out though.
I think the Belle Meade Country Club should also be forced to seek out special needs persons, such as the handicapped and mentally challenged, to join the club. And if they gave membership discounts to disadvantaged persons such as the homeless, and single mothers who qualify for food stamps, then that would be sufficient proof for me, as an outside observer, that they are eliminating all standards of admission into their private club. Let's shame these wealthy elites until we've completely ruined their fun. Then I will be satisfied.
Ms. Hargrove says this offer to resign reveals "the extent to which membership at the prestigious club is a résumé-tarnishing liability for public-office aspirants." No, I think it reveals that smear campaigns can be effective. First, let's be clear on one thing. Public office is a step down for Mr. Norton. He does this out of a sense of civic duty. If I were him, I would be suing you and your paper for libel. You regularly cast aspersions on people of integrity without offering any real proof of bigotry. If anything, the membership of this club is based on familial and fraternal ties that go back generations. The idea that they must change to suit you is completely alien to the concept of America as a free nation.
"I think the Belle Meade Country Club should also be forced to seek out special needs persons"
Goddam right they should. Homeless too. They need to be forced to feed and clothe 'em and give 'em a place to roll out their bedrolls. A nice free transportation service too. Hell, they ought to even be compelled to employ homeless to cook and caddy for 'em.
"Does Belle Meade country club have any...cross-dressing members?"
I wouldn't doubt it, since most cross-dressers are straight white males, and the club is, as has been noted, positively lousy with straight white males.
I really doubt seriously if the BMCC considers itself "embattled." In fact I doubt most members even know the SCENE is railing against them, and if they did, would not care.
Also, the SCENE should mind its business.
BTW, they may have had a cross dresser member once. Not sure
Seems to me the "Scene's business" is rattling the cage of the entrenched establishment. Maybe I'm wrong? Huh?
Sigh. People, this is not rocket surgery, to quote the TN lege. Federal judges have to follow the Code of Judicial Conduct, which expressly forbids association with groups that practice invidious discrimination. Is anyone seriously arguing that BMCC is NOT discriminatory? Really?
They can limit their membership to white male descendants of Confederate generals for all I care; as far as this liberal is concerned, they're handling their self-marginalization most admirably. But when one of their members becomes a federal judge, different rules apply.
The real question is why all the self-proclaimed lovers of the US system of laws are so verklempt when this one is applied?
Emmy Lou,
How invidious can this discrimination be when we re talking about potential members who can afford the membership expenses and who have the social position to be considered? H.G. Hill could not get into Belle Meade so he started Hillwood and, parenthetically, continued to get richer despite his exclusion. For years country music people could not get in but I don't think that prevented Eddy Arnold from being a huge success.
Put simply, not being admitted to the Belle Meade Country Club does not 'harm' people who are excluded since one needs to be successful and prominent to begin with. I suggest that you and the Scene and the Tennessean can find more important examples of discrimination, perhaps even so invidious examples.
Cross dressing at BMCC? White men? Yes, indeed!
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?t…
That link is from the NYT so it must be true.
Arabs are bad about cross dressing.
http://www.amillionlives.com/mens-harem-pa…
"one needs to be successful and prominent to begin with"
Yeah Mark. Prominent, sure 'nuff. With 'Old Money' or political position. Successful? That ain't necessarily so.
Cynic, he didi not indicate how one needs to successful.
BTW, I wonder how many of the board regulars watched the Masters? Any boycotters here? Hootie Johnson, no women allowed!
Sam,
No doubt 'Old Money' is a big factor. So is being a member of the lucky sperm club and have ancestors who achieved something. But places like the BMCC also recruit new members who achieve notable things on their own. Otherwise one gets too much inbreeding and in a few generations the members of the BMCC end up looking like a Daily Kos convention.
But the point you did not dispute is that it is hard to see anyone who is qualified for membership as a victim of invidious discrimination. You would be better off arguing that today race is not per se proof of discrimination or need for affirmative action. Poverty is a far better indicator of barriers to success than race, unless you want to argue that the children of Harold Ford Jr. and President Obama face a greater struggle than an average white child growing up in poverty in rural Tennessee.
"The frozen tomato is essentially tomato ice cream (except, instead of cream, it's got cream cheese, cottage cheese and mayonnaise), served in a round scoop on a lettuce leaf with a dollop of more mayonnaise on top[...]"
Fill in your own white people joke right here!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/06/magazine…
Mark Rogers, you have missed the point entirely, perhaps deliberately. The point is not that the BMCC's discrimination directly affects a relatively small and affluent group of people. The real issue is two-fold: (1) Why can't women and people of color be full members? It's disingenuous to suggest that there is any reason other than some sort of unspoken bias. (2) As a result, judges and judicial nominees who belong to the BMCC at best tacitly condone, and at worst share, these unspoken biases. This is conduct that is expressly forbidden by the code of judicial conduct; even if it weren't, it should be anathema to all people of good will and good sense. It's a fairly simple proposition: judges must be objective and unbiased. Participation in a biased organization calls that objectivity into question, and undermines our entire legal system.
Zoe,
I think equal treatment under law is a fundamental principle of American Values. I also think that the right to Free Association is a fundamental principle. So how do we balance those important principles?
If this were an organization like the Chamber of Commerce or the Rotary where denial of membership would be harmful, then I would have no problem with requiring that organization to integrate. But here we are talking about very successful people so it is hard to imagine that the discrimination is particularly harmful.
At the same time, punishing someone for being a member of the BMCC is a direct threat to the freedom of association. Your contention that membership in the BMCC somehow equates with flawed judgement flawed judgement or some moral failing is exactly the sort of politically correct mindset that threatens our key freedoms.
Doesn't Mr. Norton have a public record as an attorney that would be far more indicative of his work as a judge than his membership in a country club?
Do you think that the Obama Administration is so clueless as to appoint someone who harbors racist sentiments? If so, you make the birthers seem rational.
Finally, I cannot let this go by. "judges must be objective and unbiased"
Really? Do you actually think that? Then I trust that you do not believe judges should be selected for their 'compassion' or their 'empathy' or any other attributes that might led them to interpret the law in a way that favors the poor and the downtrodden when the letter of the law favors the rich and powerful. That is delightfully conservative of you.
Or is it only important to be objective and unbiased sometimes?
First: empathy is an excellent attribute in a judge, and is not inherently in contradiction with objectivity. I have seen you make this argument elsewhere, and I think you are again missing the point. If a judge has empathy for only one party, then yes, potentially it could inhibit objectivity. But in fact, it is possible for a judge to have empathy for both parties. Empathy does not necessarily mean, "I agree with your argument and you succeed on the merits of your case." Rather, sometimes it means, "The law is not on your side, but I am still going to treat you like a human being who deserves respect." For example, in a situation where one party belongs to some segment of society that is accustomed to being treated with contempt by authority figures, empathy might lead to something as simple as speaking courteously to that person, so that whether or not they receive the legal outcome that they desire, they may still feel that they have been heard and have been treated fairly.
Now, do I believe that this is always happens? No, of course not. What I have described is aspirational. But as a conservative, surely you believe in holding people to standards, even if those standards are not always met? The standard we have here is the judicial code of conduct, which is a fine, well-written, and thorough document.
You also address the freedom of association, and suggest that judges will lose their right to freedom of association if, e.g., they are not allowed to belong to the BMCC. The truth is, judges do experience some restriction of certain rights while they serve. Those who serve their country often do. By analogy, consider the military. I have several friends who are military officers, and they have often remarked that while serving, they temporarily experience restrictions on their rights, such as freedom of speech. Judges are also subject to many other restrictions, related to their abilities to hold office, fundraise, serve as estate executors, etc. Are you opposed to all of these restrictions, or are you just concerned about the freedom to belong to the BMCC?
I think this note from the commentary on Canon Two of the code of judicial conduct says it all: "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly."
Finally, yes, you are correct: I do believe that membership in a discriminatory organization constitutes either flawed judgment or a moral failing (and often both). Nonetheless, the ordinary private citizen is entitled to flawed judgment and moral failing, just as I am entitled to my moral judgments about those failings. However, judges are held to a higher standard, and in my opinion, rightly so.
"Hey guys, there's four of us, we enjoy each others company and we like to play golf. Let's start a club."
"Great idea. Wait, if we have a club we'll have to have an African-American, a Mexican-American, one each of the LGBTs, a homeless guy and probably someone in a wheelchair or we'll be accused by somebody of something. Do we know anybody like that?"
"I can get my gardener, but he doesn't speak English."
"We can probably recruit that guy with the cardboard sign on the corner near the freeway.... Aw, forget it. Hit the damn ball!"
Zoe,
Regarding empathy, I think all public officials have an obligation to treat people in the manner you suggest. But when it comes to the role of a judge, allowing empathy to trump law leads down a dangerous path. Judges are not supposed to write the law but to oversee its application.
I think your position on the idea of a higher standard ought to apply to all elected and appointed officials. After all, no one makes someone become a judge or a state representative or President. Having said that, I am not optimistic that we will achieve that since people on both ideological sides tend to want to make exceptions for people on their side.
Finally,
"I do believe that membership in a discriminatory organization constitutes either flawed judgment or a moral failing (and often both)."
I take it that would include the Klan?
How about someone who is or was a member of the Communist Party? The Weathermen? The Black Panthers?
The radicals will claim harm because they miss out on the business deals that are forged out on the links. But could they possibly benefit any of these people they desire access to? If you're a race hustler, that in itself is an admission that you have no worth as an individual. Your specialness is derived from an artificially constructed group of people who then clamor for voting bloc rights.
I would caution those of you who would force private organizations to conform to your way of thinking. When you attack people you don't understand, they may become subversive and even violent. Therefore, you should start your own club and not worry about what other people are doing. That way you will immediately enhance your personal circumstances through positive direction and growth.
"When you attack people you don't understand, they may become subversive and even violent."
And, like, crash the economy?
I love that people are still whipping out the "P.C.!!!" allegation, like it's still 1992. If you think judges should be allowed to belong to clubs that practice invidious discrimination, petition to change the CJC! No one is stopping you!
News flash on the wire today: In San francisco bisexuals sue Gay softball league for discrimination. It proves one of my favorite theories that everybody is all the same everywhere.
Emmy Lou,
The issue is not the CJC's rules. The issue is whether the BMCC's membership policy results in "invidious" discrimination. How invidious can it be to not be a member of the Club if meeting the requirements of admission include considerable wealth and social position?
I also wonder whether, since you regard membership in the BMCC as a disqualifier, would you feel the same way about a judge who is a member of the Communist Party? The last time I looked, no members of the BMCC ever tried to help another nation defeat the US.
Mark Rogers: Master of the Straw Man, too!
Funny, that. Such a diverse city, and yet there isn't a single Nashville resident of means and standing in the club. I suppose they simply don't exist here?
Hargrove,
Unlike you, I do not presume to look into the hearts of people and sit in judgement on their actions. As far as I am concerned, if the BMCC were turned into a huge home for unwed mothers or low income housing, it would not bother me at all. But I do think people have a right to privately associate with whom they like.
The racial composition of the BMCC means infinitely less to the diversity of Nashville than all the other achievements made in the city. We are not talking about an economic cabal or a secret political conspiracy. Like all snobby country clubs, it exists to provide a safety blanket for the socially insecure and a great place to look for spouses for one's children.
None of this has anything to do with how Mr. Norton will function as a judge. Doesn't he have a record that demonstrates his beliefs? Your argument relies on guilt by association.
This is just so much posturing by people who want to impose their values on how others live their lives. The difference between people like you and social conservatives is that at least the social conservatives are honest about their agenda.
Not my argument or my judgment. The Federal Judicial Canon:
http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/auto…
Canon 2: A judicial employee should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
I think you are really stretching things to call membership in the BMCC 'appearing improper.' But riddle me this, would you consider membership in the Communist Party similarly improper?
Again with the Straw Man addressing a non-problem.
Canon 2 - C. Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.
Prove that not being made a member of the BMCC is 'invidious.' There was a reason that this specific adjective was included and I am willing to bet that it was to prevent silliness like this.
As for Canon 2A, if that were applicable here, then how in the sacred name of Learned Hand, why did he get nominated by the Obama Administration?
The Scene has always has this desire to kick the shins of the BMCC. Of course, when the Scene did that disgusting hit piece on Senator Henry's son's wedding and the powers that be got angry, the Scene folded like a cheap suit. This is more of the shin kicking.
I dunno, eight of ten federal judges think it's invidious. I'd say the matter is by no means settled.
"As for Canon 2A, if that were applicable here, then how in the sacred name of Learned Hand, why did he get nominated by the Obama Administration?"
What are you talking about? Paine has been a federal bankruptcy judge for 14 years, appointed by the 6th Circuit judges.
Not familiar with the piece on Henry's son.
