On the January 2 broadcast of his Newsradio 850 KOA show, host Mike Rosen downplayed criticisms of Missouri Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr., whose controversial book, The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault (Random House, December 2006), has raised significant questions about Dierker's ability to rule impartially. In his book, Dierker reportedly “frequently uses the terms ”femifascists' " and “illiberal liberals,” and devotes the first chapter, titled "Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism," to attacking feminists. Rosen said that “some of the things” Dierker wrote “are highly defensible,” and Rosen also suggested misleadingly that complaints against Dierker are coming from judges of a “liberal persuasion.”

During the broadcast, Rosen allowed Dierker to claim, “The issue is not my ethics, but the suppression of speech through manipulation of the law and the courts by people with an agenda that masquerades under terms like 'equality' and 'tolerance.' ” Rosen also read from a December 26, 2006, St. Louis Post-Dispatch article that detailed the criticism of Dierker's book, including his frequent use of the term “femifascists.” But Rosen failed to note that Missouri state Sen. Joan Bray (D-University City) has filed a complaint regarding Dierker with Missouri's Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline, citing her concerns about “women in Missouri being treated fairly in the courtroom,” according to the article. Rosen also ignored the Post-Dispatch's reporting that other judges and lawyers in Missouri “have said that Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit.”

Rosen also defended Dierker's statements regarding sexual harassment, particularly Dierker's claim that "[t]he theories of the sexual harassment police have stretched their tentacles from college faculties to Supreme Court confirmation hearings to legal and judicial ethics." As Rosen stated, “You also said, 'From Anita Hill to Monica Lewinsky, the cry of sexual harassment has been selectively raised to advance certain groups' political agendas under the guise of promoting equal opportunity in the workplace.' Yeah. I agree.”

Dierker's book was released December 26, 2006, though excerpts of the book were reportedly leaked early and circulated in the legal community.

According to the Associated Press, other notable quotes from the book include:

• “Just as we saw with the femifascists, illiberal liberals don't want equality; they want to make some people more equal than others. And they've made it happen through their dominance of the courts over the past seventy-five years. Liberals have converted the courts from the 'least dangerous' branch of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers to the most dangerous.” (From a chapter titled “Making Some Americans More Equal Than Others,” about the 14th Amendment and equal protection under the law)

• “This is liberal law in a nutshell. History and tradition count for nothing; the language of the Constitution itself counts for little; the only criterion is whether a ruling will advance the liberal agenda.” (From the chapter “Ozzie and Harriet Are Dead,” about abortion and the attack on the traditional family.)
  

From the January 2 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:

ROSEN: It's rare that you find a sitting judge who writes a book like this. It's a very pointed book. There's some sharp criticism of liberal judicial activism, and Judge Dierker has been criticized by many of his colleagues on the bench -- his colleagues on the bench of a liberal persuasion -- for breaking the unofficial code of silence and criticizing others on the bench. He doesn't pull a lot of punches. He doesn't think much of the ACLU. He doesn't think much of radical feminists. He doesn't like racial preferences. We'll be talking to him in the 10 o'clock hour.

[ ... ]

ROSEN: And it's rare that you'll find a sitting judge who will write a book like this. For his troubles, Judge Dierker has already been criticized by some of his judicial colleagues who take umbrage at his criticism of, in essence, them. We've got him on the line right now. Judge Dierker, thanks for joining us this morning.

DIERKER: It's a pleasure to be here, Mike.

ROSEN: Let me ask you to first talk about the reaction that you have received from this book from within the judicial community.

DIERKER: The judicial community has been, shall we say, quiet. Some of, some unattributed remarks have been rather critical. The -- parts of the legal community have been more vigorous and they're demanding that I be disciplined for writing the book. So I'm going to, I may -- ironically, I think the demands for discipline illustrate what my book is all about. The issue is not my ethics, but the suppression of speech through manipulation of the law and the courts by people with an agenda that masquerades under terms like “equality” and “tolerance.”

ROSEN: I read a story about your book and the reaction to it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on December 26 and the lead reads as follows, “A liberal-bashing book by veteran St. Louis judge, by a veteran St. Louis judge, is to become available publicly this week but its already causing a stir in political and legal circles and prompting some to say it could cost him his job.” That was the lead in a news story.

DIERKER: Well there. Certainly it's been reported that complaints have been filed, and my lawyers are attempting to verify the status of those complaints. We're confident that the disciplinary authorities will stand with the First Amendment. But as my book indicates, we, we all need to be vigilant to make sure everybody does his job in protecting the First Amendment.

ROSEN: It says in this story, “Chapter one of the book, The Tyranny of Tolerance, has circulated via email since last month and has been widely read in legal circles. The sentiments expressed in that chapter, which frequently uses the term 'femifascists' and is titled 'The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism,' have already prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges.”

DIERKER: That's -- that's the report. I have, at this time, no independent way of determining if the complaint is pending, since complaints are considered confidential until the Commission on Discipline goes forward.

ROSEN: In reading your book, one of the chapters -- actually it's in the appendix -- it's called “My Run-in With the Tyrants of Tolerance,” and in that you reproduce a letter that was sent to you by the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of the state of Missouri responding to the language you used in a ruling, in an opinion.

DIERKER: Right.

ROSEN: Tell us about that, and it seems to sound eerily familiar to what this news story claims is going to be or claims is a complaint with the state body -- presumably the same state body -- about some of the things you said in the book.

DIERKER: Right. Well, you know, that episode -- and I included all the relevant opinion and the relevant correspondence so that everybody would know what went on -- that really was the catalyst for me to start researching, thinking, and analyzing what was going on in the judiciary and the threat that my profession, I think, is under from people with a certain philosophy that tolerates no dissent. And so the opinion -- I had written an opinion on sexual harassment, it was in the context of a tort suit for infliction of emotional distress, and I reviewed the law and Missouri law did not, in my opinion, support the pleading as it was written. But I felt that it was probably a basis for the claim, and I wrote an opinion -- but in the course of which I felt it was appropriate to sound the alarm about importing some notions of sexual harassment law that had been fashioned in employment discrimination cases into the common law and thereby vastly expanding the threat that the courts would be censoring speech in the workplace or even on the street, in the context of alleged harassment. The opinion provoked a complaint that is in the appendix and I responded, and -- as I say in my book -- I didn't quite do a Larry Summers, but I, I indicated I would watch my language in the future,
and --

ROSEN: You said you'd toned down your rhetoric, but you made it clear in your response that there was nothing in your written opinion that you wouldn't defend as a matter of law. And interpretation of the law.

DIERKER: Well exactly. And I also tried to get across what I thought was a terrible threat to the independence of the judiciary if judges could be disciplined for writing about a matter of substantial significance in the law -- and public policy generally -- in an opinion. So the episode started me thinking that if a judge is at risk for writing an opinion, you know, what's going on here? And I began to keep an eye out for instances where the courts were being enlisted and the legal profession were being enlisted to suppress debate and dissent on issues that are selected by people that, you know the terms, use invective to get people's attention -- but, you know, “femifacists,” “illiberal liberals,” call them what you will. You know, I think I read recently something about secular-progressivism. You know, I think it -- it's Orwellian. It's people who have a certain world view that has to be imposed, and usually without resort to the democratic process and the courts. The twin themes of the book, I think, are how this agenda is used through the courts to impose -- impose the agenda and at the same time ignore parts of the Constitution that are rather explicit and seem to stand in the way of the agenda.

ROSEN: Well, some of the things that you had written that somebody took issue with I think are highly defensible. For example, you said, “The theories of the sexual harassment police have stretched their tentacles from college faculties to Supreme Court confirmation hearings to legal and judicial ethics.”

DIERKER: I thought that was --

ROSEN: I think that's pretty accurate.

DIERKER: Well, I thought so. You know, I certainly --

ROSEN: You also said, “From Anita Hill to Monica Lewinsky, the cry of sexual harassment has been selectively raised to advance certain groups' political agendas under the guise of promoting equal opportunity in the workplace.” Yeah. I agree.

DIERKER: That was my view, and it still is.

ROSEN: Let's take a break here.