• Home
  • News
  • Ariz. Chief Justice Accused of Banning Non-PC Words

Judiciary

Ariz. Chief Justice Accused of Banning Non-PC Words

Posted Nov 12, 2008 8:32 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Updated: The group Judicial Watch has accused the chief justice of Arizona’s Supreme Court of imposing an implied ban on the term “illegal alien” and 17 other words or phrases in court opinions.

The conservative group says Chief Justice Ruth McGregor effectively banned the words by distributing a letter from the Arizona Hispanic Bar Association that cautioned against use of the 18 “inflammatory” terms, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports.

"Any judge receiving that letter would conclude the chief justice did not want those words used," Judicial Watch president Thomas Fitton told the NLJ.

Among the terms the bar association dislikes are illegal alien, illegals, aliens, resident or nonresident aliens, illegal immigrants, scratchbacks or wetbacks, armies of immigrants and invaders, the story says.

Cari Gerchick, director of communications for the court, says McGregor merely distributed the letter and did not ban any words. “There was no implication, none, of any ban of any words within the Arizona court system," Gerchick told the ABA Journal.

Updated at 9:55 a.m. to include Gerchick's comment to the ABA Journal.

Comments

1.

J.D.
Nov 12, 2008 9:13 AM CST

TITLE CORRECTION: Justice accused of banning “LEGALLY ACCURATE” terminology.

Since when is “alien” or “illegal alien” considered politically-incorrect? These are terms that have been used for centuries and exist throughout the INA and other law.

The Hispanic Bar org is simply trying to blur the distinction between “immigrants” and “illegal aliens.” They do not want people held accountable for violating federal law. To that extent, the Hispanic Bar is an anarchist group.

And if trying to get our laws erased and reward those who trample upon our sovereignty via amnesty isn’t bad enough, now they want to regulate speech. Absolutely preposterous.

Here’s a link to the justice’s memo, the demands from the activist group trying to alter language and muzzle judges, and the story from Judicial Watch:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/nov/judge-ban-use-illegal-and-aliens

Flag this comment

2.

B. McLeod
Nov 12, 2008 11:05 AM CST

Actually, NOT all of the words are accurate.  I would CONCUR that “scratchbacks” and “wetbacks” should NOT be used in opinions under WELL-ESTABLISHED rules of DECORUM.

Flag this comment

3.

AZ JD
Nov 12, 2008 11:32 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

4.

J.D.
Nov 12, 2008 11:48 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

5.

AZ JD
Nov 12, 2008 12:27 PM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

6.

J.D.
Nov 12, 2008 12:44 PM CST

I guess the ABA is also into banning free speech. It makes since; the ABA also supports illegal alien amnesty and immigration anarchy, (aka “reform”).

I didn’t call anyone a name, used no foul language, didn’t pretend I was someone else.

But post #3 which calls me a “colonizer,” and “a commiter of genocide,” and an “Anglo Supremacist,” “a racist,” and and “idiot” is allowed to remain.

Seems we need to re-think the standards around here.

Flag this comment

7.

Molly McDonough
Nov 12, 2008 1:34 PM CST

I’ll take this as an opportunity to remind ABAJournal.com readers that we have a comment policy. We like to see healthy discussions and debate. But we draw a line at name-calling and personal attacks.

Policy in part: “Comments are a place for our readers to debate—sometimes quite vigorously—the issues we cover. Please respect our readers’ diversity of opinion and look for ways to further the discussion.

But there are also limits to that debate. Don’t use profanity or resort to name-calling, threats or personal attacks. Don’t spam the site with advertising. And don’t masquerade as someone you’re not. We reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate and block users who consistently violate our policies.”

Flag this comment

8.

J.D.
Nov 13, 2008 10:23 AM CST

@2: Of course no judge or attorney should be using the term “wetback” or “scratchback” in the court. The AZ Hispanic Bar has shown no instances of this happening; it’s a divergence designed to keep you from focusing on their agenda. The demands that this group has made include abolishing the phrase “illegal immigration” for “immigration issue.” They want to ban “proponents for amnesty” and replace it with “immigration reform proponents.” This is simply a political effort to warp policy through language. Everyone—proponents and opponents—called the 1986 amnesty an “amnesty.” Now, in an effort to ‘trick’ the people into supporting another amnesty, these advocates are trying to alter court proceedings.

There’s a difference between “human rights advocates”—a term the AZ Hispanic Bar approves—and “pro-illegal immigration activists”—a term they want to eliminate. They are trying to prevent open discussion and full use of the First Amendment… so that they can realize their dream of immigration anarchy.

@ABA moderators: I apologize for stating that comment-writer #3 was a “racist” for calling me a “colonizer,” and “a commiter of genocide,” and an “Anglo Supremacist.” Thank you for removing his comment.

Flag this comment

9.

Jim
Nov 13, 2008 11:24 PM CST

My take was that the Chief Justice agreed to circulate the letter received.
. By the way, the Selective Service uses the term “illegal alien.”
. I wonder what George Orwell would have thought about the suggested substitutions.
. Jim 2998-11-14-6 0022 -0500

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.