[Clipping: A mistake of judgment] Part: 1 of 2
1 clipping ; 23 x 16 cm.View a full description of this clipping.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
A-14 Thursday, November 2, 1989
Dallas Times Herald
Founded in 1879 Dallas, Texas
'XAmcs
tEXA&,Pulitzer Prizes
1964, 1980, 1983
John Buzzetta
Publisher
Roy E. Bode
Editor
Ray Wilkerson, Managing Editor
Lee Cullum, Editorial Page Editor
Ike Massey, President
Glenn M. Ford,
Chief Financial Officer
John A. Wolf, Sr. V.P. Marketing
David Holmes, V.P. Advertising
Gene M. Janski, V.P. Operations
Richard R. Seibert, V.P. CirculationA mistake of
E ven though the original newspa-
per story in which State District
Judge Jack Hampton got him-
self in trouble was a Dallas
Times Herald story, we are not
certain a judge ought to be thrown out of
office for the things he says to a newspaper
reporter.
The voters put Judge Hampton in of-
fice. It may be up to the voters to review his
tenure, next time he runs.
Ever since the fat went into the fire,
Judge Hampton has attempted to weasel
out of responsibility for his remarks by
blaming the whole mess on the reporter
who quoted him. We are heartened that the
report of the special master made it plain
the original story was an accurate reflection
of the judge's remarks. The truth is that
Judge Hampton knew exactly where his re-
marks were headed and wanted to see those
remarks in print.
In those remarks, the judge spoke in
cruel and bigoted terms of honest produc-
tive members of the community, murder
victims, whom he described as "queers"
who basically got what they deserved. In
response to complaints that the judge's bias-
es made him unfit for the bench, the Texas
Commission on Judicial Conduct broughtjudgment
charges against Judge Hampton and ap-
pointed a special master to investigate the
facts of the case.
The commission must still make its
ruling on whether Judge Hampton should
be removed from the bench, but the mas-
ter's report, published this week, will rec-
ommend the commission exonerate him.
The special master did not find legal
grounds for action against Judge Hampton.
The rest of the report is gibberish.
The report says Judge Hampton's re-
marks "did not suggest ... that the life of a
prostitute or homosexual was of a lesser val-
ue than that of some other individual." The
special master is dead wrong. That is precise-
ly what Judge Hampton's remarks suggested.
The bottom line is that Judge Hamp-
ton's deliberate inflammatory behavior was
beneath the level of dignity the public has a
right to expect from the bench. The man
has a right to say what he wants in his own
back yard. But he went to lengths and used
the power of his office to get these coarse
opinions printed in the newspaper.
Does the public have a right to expect
better of a judge's dignity? We think so. The
judicial tenure process may not be the ap-
propriate venue or remedy. But that doesn't
mean decent people should stop searching.543
Upcoming Parts
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This clipping can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this part or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current part of this Clipping.
[Clipping: A mistake of judgment], clipping, November 2, 1989; Dallas, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1584546/m1/1/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Special Collections.