Calif. Judges Possibly Banned from Scouting Activity

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

I understand that you may not like what's happening in CA, but just for the sake of argument, let's consider an analogy. You are a black man living in the south. The judge you are going before is a member of a private organization that can set criteria membership called the KKK. How comfortable are you that you will get a fair hearing in his courtroom? A judge is supposed to be fair and impartial and above reproach. When you enter a judges court with the knowledge that he is a member of an organization that openly descriminates against a segment of society that you belong to, you COULD have reason to worry. The BSA sets their member criteria and quite plainly says that they ban homosexuals and atheists specifically. If you are going to court for a case that deals with those two subjects, you have to think that he already has a bias against you.

[OldGreyEagle]

Holy Cow, Robin Beefed...

 

I know all analogies limp, but to even remotely compare the BSA with the KKK goes beyond any quantum leap of logic that I can comprehend. The KKK preaches hate, the BSA teaches tolerance and acceptance. The KKK wants to dominate, the BSA wants to peacefully co-exist. I think comparing the KKK to the BSA goes beyond going over the top

[littlebillie]

kwc57 - absolutely!

 

If you choose to enter certain professions in the private sector, you accept certain restraints. If you choose to enter that same profession in the public sector, there are other or additional restraints.

 

You either accept these, or you don't. When it comes to being a judge, the need for impartiality (or at least its appearance) is a fairly obvious necessity.

 

Those who say that no one is forced to join Scouts ("if you don't like some of their policies, don't join at all") must also recognize that no one is forced to become a judge. If anyone says that changing the rules mid-tenure is unfair for those already on the bench, well - it was unfair for gay Scouts and Scouters in the 70's. No one gave them a sunset clause, either.

 

kwc57's KKK analogy is stark and ugly - but accurate and understandable. Still, I want to - HAVE to - believe that anyone involved in Scouting can be respectful and fair elsewhere, whichever side of the gay-membership issue they stand on. And after all - the KKK doesn't have a Federal Charter.

 

FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN IS that it's quite possible that at least some of these judges SUPPORT gays in Scouts, and by making them leave, then the PC force that required them to do so is slowing down the very change that they seek.

 

It's complicated looking forward, too - should any judge who belongs to AA be kept off of, say, a traffic court bench? Should gay judges also be dropped? What about NRA membership? Don't know if there's an orthodox Jewish judge out there, but there are certain medical cases they ought not sit on.

 

Or should judges have some kind of automatic recusal matrix - reasons that they cannot or should not sit on certain kinds of cases or over certain kinds of litigants?

 

I am currently not convinced either way. At it's simplest, maybe it makes sense - but things get way murky one single step away from that starting point....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

NO NO NO

 

The KKK analogy is not accurate and is not understandable, The BSA does not print literature denouncing gays as subhumans, the BSA has never burned a Fler-de-Lis on a gay persons lawn, and the BSA has never said it wanted to dominate politics. If you are going to say gays belong in the BSA do it with logical arguments, and not by feeble attmepts at fear and hate mongering!!!

[littlebillie]

The BSA stands under the same expressive association umbrella as the KKK in certain matters of membership. Regardless of the way those policies are demonstrated or put into practice, they exist. Regardless of whether or not one person sees similarities, others do - and this can be enough to affect the appearance of impartiality.

 

Though the example is undeniably extreme, it makes a valid point, because there ARE certain consitutionally protected parallels.

 

For myself, tho', I'm pretty certain that after membership and highway beautification projects, the similarities end...

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Oh brother!!! Come on OGE. I'm not trying to compare the BSA to the KKK and you know it. It was an extreme "illustration" of a principle used to make a point. The principle being that a person who holds membership in a private organization who's membership criteria openly descriminates could hold the same bias in his professional life. For judges, that is not a position they should place themselves in. That a judge wants to be a scout leader is a good and noble thing. If he is hearing a case concerning gay rights, the defense has good grounds for an appeal if the judge finds against them. Common sense.

 

Did you watch the short lived show that was on earlier this year about the Supreme Court. One of the Justice's wife got her real estate liscense. She had a big deal cooking and he told her she had to drop it because the buyer was involved in a case he would be hearing. Judges live with conflict issues everyday and have to be on the lookout constantly for possible conflicts out of left field.

 

Good grief, I live in Oklahoma City and was 6 blocks from the Murrah building bombing. McVeigh's case was originally supposed to be heard in Federal Court here in OKC in Judge Wayne Alley's court. The case was moved to CO in order for the trial to be fair and was taken away from Alley because his office was directly across the street from the blast....even though he was not in his office the day it happened.

 

Like it or not (and I don't either), but a judge belonging to a Country Club that does not allow women, or the BSA that does not allow gays or atheists, or even the KKK could be setting himself up for having to recuse himself from cases or having his decisions appealed. It's all part of the fairness built into our judicial system to ensure fair trials.

[pfann]

kwc,

 

I agree there is already a system in place for judges to recuse themselves if a conflict of interest comes up. Then why do we need all the extra rules about if your in this group then you can't do this , etc. Where do these types of rules end? Pretty soon we will have rules saying only female judges can hear rape cases. Or maybe female judges can't hear rape cases because they would be biased toward the victim. The more rules you have the more muddy the water becomes.

 

Let the system of recusals work. Allow both sides in court to request the judges recusal and it is grounds for appeal if he does not. Common sense can prevail instead of grinding the system to a halt with all of these "regulations"

 

Happy new year everyone.

 

-pfann

[littlebillie]

pfann 'Allow both sides in court to request the judges recusal and it is grounds for appeal if he

does not. Common sense can prevail instead of grinding the system to a halt with all of these "regulations"'

 

wanna bet that the defense would then start automatically requesting recusal - if only because the judge (just for example), having seen too many of the same kinds of case before, may not be an argumental or evidential tabula rasa - as a means preparing for an automatic appeal? On the face of it, that suggestion might actually grind the system to a halt itself with additional motions and more appeals - and the common sense part is that every lawyer would avail themselves of such a tool. And of course in smaller areas where ya got only a judge or too to begin with, what happens when you recuse them ALL off a case?

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

pfann,

 

Ever notice how long it takes for cases to go to trial? Know why? Because the court system is overloaded with cases to hear. If we add more and more recusals and appeals on top of an already over stressed sytem, it will collapse. Instead of treating the symptoms, you treat the root cause. If judges are not involved in activities that could cause recusal or appeal, then the problem is greatly reduced. Is it a big price to pay to be a judge? You bet! Most things that are worthwhile do require sacrifices.

 

Many jobs carry requirements with them. Would you want your Pastor sitting out on his driveway without a shirt, drinking a beer and smoking a cigar? Probably not. But you could make the argument that a system of forgivness is in place and we should let it work. Why should we expect our Pastor's behavior or activites be above reproach or question?

 

Yeah, yeah...I know....someone is going to say that comparing a Pastor's sins to a Judge's noble desire to be in scouting is way off base. It is an illustration to make a point and nothing more.

 

I once had a Pastor who was a great Christian man. He left the pastorate to become a foreign missionary. Before becoming a Christian and a Pastor, he loved to hunt and fish. While hunting and fishing, he loved to chew tobacco. He once told me that if he could have gotten a wad of tobacco the size of his fist in his mouth he would have. He even said that he still missed it to this day. But he knew it was the wrong thing to do in his personal and professional life and he gave it up. Certain jobs require certain sacrifices of a personal nature and that includes judges especially.

 

Judges work for the government and government employees are forbidden by law to descriminate against people because of their race, color, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. By being a member of a private organization that openly descriminates against certain types of people, a judge potentially puts himself in conflict.

 

Have we taken things to far? Probably. But it is the rules we have currently and what we have to live with. It can be changed eventually.

[Rooster7]

Pfann has hit the nail on the head again. If we allow the courts to disqualify folks because of what private organization(s) they belong to, there will be no logical end. If I belong to a fan club for the Washington Redskins, it does not mean that I hate Cowboy fans. It simply means I like hanging around like-minded folks. On the other hand, if I joined the We Hate Dallas club, a Cowboy fan could have a pretty good argument against me. To the point, if someone has a fair and reasonable argument to request a judge's recusal for a particular case, then the request should be made. It's unreasonable and prejudicial of the California courts to say all judges belonging to particular organization must resign or resign from their judgeship. What about avowed homosexuals? Should they be forced to resign from the bench because they might be partial against self-proclaimed fundamentalists? As pfann noted, who are to judge rape cases - women or men? Should judges who belong to feminists organizations be forced to pick and chose? Judges are still private citizens. As such, they are entitled to a social life. Should they be forced to resign all organizations? After all, every organization stands for something. What about party affiliation? Do we remove all judges who proclaim a belief in God because they could be prejudicial against atheists? Where does it stop? The current procedure is appropriate and reasonable. If a judge is a member of an organization whereas a good argument can be made that he may be prejudicial, then the appropriate party (prosecution or defense) should ask for recusal. For the courts to single out membership to a particular organization like the BSA is flat out wrong. Its a blatant attack against judges with conservative values.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[OldGreyEagle]

Dont use BSA and KKK in a post and then say you are not trying to compare the two of them. And if you werent comparing them, then why not tell littlebillie that when he states your comparison is "accurate and understandable" that you didnt mean to compare the two

 

lets see, if I was a judge, I cant handle cases against gays and atheists because I am an Eagle scout so I have to be biased, I am a practicing Roman Catholic so all you "fallen-away" catholics cant possibly get a fair shake from me, as well as Methodists, Baptists or the Jews.

 

Thats it, If I ever get in legal trouble I will claim to be a Vegan Wiccan/Druid with Buddist tendency and then call that only a like minded individual may judge me, and I want a trial by a jury of my peers, lets see if we can find 12, actually more people of the same persuasion. In that line of thinking Males cant judge females or females males. What happended to evaluation a person on the job he/she does, not on their past or theoretical bias that "could" happen.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Rooster7]

kwc57,

 

If we allow a group of judges to decide which clubs and organization are acceptable (for judges to have membership), and which ones are not, they will create a judiciary with a very particular mindset. This is extremely dangerous. They will generate the opposite affect of what they claim. Policies such as this one will produce a very prejudicial and bias bench. Alas, although subtle and indirect, I see their intent as being purposeful and dubious by nature. After a little time, it will be a California bench, which has no tolerance for conservative values and/or people of faith.

 

The current procedure, while it may slow the courts, ensures a fair judiciary. Judges are people. While we want them to be robots completely devoid of biases, that is an impossibility. Our best opportunity for justice is to allow a cross-section of qualified judges to be represented in the courts and to request recusal when there appears to be a conflict. Otherwise, if California has their way, we will have Godless ideologues ruling over the population. Laugh if you will, but I see that day as a distinct possibility.

 

If we continue along this path, "Eagle Scout" will become a defamatory charge.

[littlebillie]

OGE - actually, I used the word "analogy" - not "comparison". And the analogy had to do with an individual's membership in a constitutionally protected group, and that group's membership 'criteria'.

 

Like it or not, they have each claimed the same protections; likewise, each has identified undesireables...

 

So to that extent, it's a fair analogy. And I think the analogy itself was stopped AT that extent...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

OGE,

 

I have always respected your insight and more often than not agree with your views. Sometimes I don't. I'd ask that you do the same for me. I'll be the first to say that I have NO problem with a judge being involved in scouting. But what I'm saying is that I understand the basis of the "possible" ban on CA judge's involvement that "may" be decided in the future. Agreeing and understanding are two differnt animals. My comparison of the BSA and KKK is NOT in their philosophy or activity. The comparison is in that they BOTH are private organizations that openly descriminate against certain segments of society in their membership criteria. One is for good purposes, the other is for bad purposes. But the cold hard fact is at the root, they both choose to descriminate based on their different views. The issue and comparison is descrimination, not that one is a hate organization and the other a value organization. Courts tend to deal more with the letter of the law and less with the spirit of the law. I can see the reasoning behind a judicial system's attempt to remove itself from association with any form of bias, predjudice or descrimination......be it good or bad. They are there to dispense fair and impartial justice based on the law rather than support the personal values we hold dear. Hopefully, the two coincide, but not always.

[littlebillie]

"If we allow a group of judges to decide which clubs and organization are acceptable (for judges to have membership), and which ones are not, they will create a judiciary with a very particular mindset."

 

Rooster - very interesting point. you have to wonder what the Supreme Court would look like today if all candidates had been through the homogenizating disassociation as described at seems to be the goal here. Indeed, I wonder if anyone without memberships, associations, alignments and sympathies would be suffciently human to sit in judgement in the first place...?

 

I've sat on many a jury - and an oft-heard question is, "Would you be able and willing to set aside your personal beliefs and render a verdict according to the facts of the case and the instructions given you by the judge?" Of course, the answer's always yes - and usually the folks are empaneled. Well, jurors are the necessary amateur in our court system - I have to think the professionals can do it too...