Staff Reports
The aftermath of January 6th is still causing waves, proving once again that a day in Washington can lead to months, if not years, of political discontent. The latest figure to feel the heat is former New York judge Donald R. Spaccio, who found himself in hot water for making a perfectly legal decision: attending a rally featuring former President Donald Trump. In what appears to be yet another instance of political correctness run amok, Spaccio was forced to resign due to his participation in a demonstration that many in the left-liberal circles now deem “controversial.”
Spaccio made it clear that he didn’t see anything wrong with his actions. He argued that attending a political rally during an election cycle doesn’t necessarily violate judicial conduct rules, even if he wasn’t running for office himself. New York’s own Commission on Judicial Conduct, however, didn’t share his views. Their chief administrator, Robert H. Tembeckjian, seemed determined to dampen Spaccio’s political enthusiasm with a slew of regulations governing judges. Apparently, judges must follow rules that prevent them from attending political gatherings when they’re not in the midst of an electoral campaign—because nothing screams impartiality like turning judges into political hermits.
All you sycophants who follow Trump. This is your future. Everything Trump touches turns to shite.#Rabbithole
"Judge’s revelation of ‘impermissible’ support for Trump on Jan. 6 has him out of a job now and ‘at any time in the future’" on SmartNews: https://t.co/uZ2yHtr3Yf
— Peace and love (@AmericaFightHim) September 30, 2024
It’s amusing how the same institutions that claim to promote justice can also be so swift in punishing those who dare to express their political beliefs. Spaccio’s response to the situation was staunch; he stood by his decision to attend the rally. He suggested that his rights should not evaporate simply because he donned the robe of a judge. In an era where “free speech” is thrown around more loosely than confetti, his insistence on his right to attend the rally raises an interesting point about the sanctity of individual rights versus the whims of regulatory bodies.
Adding to the irony is the fact that Spaccio has had his fair share of controversy, not just regarding political gatherings but also over local noise regulations due to his bird cannon. Apparently, fighting noise pollution from a neighboring business became a point of contention for him, leading to a confrontation where he made quite the racket himself. Who knew a judge was also a cannon enthusiast? This only adds to the eccentric image of a local judge trying to defend his territory, both legally and audibly, in a world where it seems everything is an issue waiting to be litigated.
In the grand scheme of things, Spaccio’s escapades are a small slice of a larger pie that displays the misguided efforts of political correctness that dominate today’s society. If a judge can’t attend a rally while holding a conservative viewpoint without facing backlash, what next? Are individuals allowed to express their disapproval of current policies, or must they hide their opinions behind the veil of political correctness? Spaccio’s fight is not just about one man’s right to gather; it’s a microcosm of the larger struggle between individual liberty and the constricting hand of bureaucratic authority.
