Am. Bar Assoc. may bar judges from anti-gay groups

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-08062004-344147.html

 

ABA May Bar Judges From Anti-Gay Groups

ByGINA HOLLAND

The Associated Press

 

ATLANTA - Judges are on the front line of battles over legal rights for same-sex couples and should never belong to an organization that discriminates against gays, supporters of a proposed change to American Bar Association ethics rules argued Friday.

 

Judges are already prohibited from joining clubs that discriminate based on race or sex. An ABA panel is debating whether to make groups that discriminate against gays off limits as well.

 

The ABA, the nation's largest lawyers' group with more than 400,000 members, writes conduct rules for judges and lawyers. States and federal courts generally adopt them, with some changes.

 

It is not known how many judges participate in groups such as the Boy Scouts that have policies against hiring gays or having homosexual leaders, or some veterans groups that restrict membership to heterosexuals.

 

The ABA held an all-day public hearing Friday on proposed judicial ethics changes during the association's summer meeting, which runs through Tuesday. Rules on gifts judges may accept and judges' involvement in fund-raisers may also be changed. The ABA is not expected to vote on any changes until next year. It would be the first overhaul of the rules in more than a decade, and any changes eventually could affect thousands of judges.

...

[Fat Old Guy]

Sounds like too much intrusion into the private lives of members of a trade group.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So..... you're against private organizations having high moral standards for its members?

[Fat Old Guy]

No, I'm against labor unions telling members what they can do in their free time.

[Eamonn]

This might sound like a dumb question but ..

The question is: So what about a judge that belongs to a church that doesn't approve of homosexual behavior or activity?

Does this mean that he or she would have to step down?

If this is the case there would be a lot of unemployed judges.

Isn't that discrimination?

Eamonn.

[Fat Old Guy]

It's PC run amok!

[evmori]

Sounds like the ABA is practicing what they are trying to stop!

[NJCubScouter]

Haven't we had this discussion before? I think it was California where this proposal came up previously. Now it is being proposed at the national level. I doubt it will pass, and if it does, some state judiciaries will adopt and some will not. I have mixed feelings about it. But it would not be that much different than the many other restrictions that judges are under. In New Jersey, a judge cannot be an active member of a political party or speak out on public issues other than those directly affecting the administration of justice. Those are pretty serious restrictions on their First Amendment rights, but the courts have upheld such restrictions because they protect the image of the courts as being fair and impartial. (Which of course they sometimes fail to be anyway, but that is another discussion.)

[eisely]

I actually agree with NJCubScouter on this one. Judges already face a variety of restrictions. It is a question of where and how to draw the line. It is also a question of who draws the line. The ABA has very low credibility with me on a variety of issues.

 

There is also a constitutional issue for federal judges, and this could relate to abortion as well as policies towards homosexuality. Article VI of the constitution provides in part, "; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

 

This would suggest that if any attorney who belonged to a religiion that considered homosexuality to be a sinful life style, could not be refused an appointment to a judicial position or removed on this grounds.

 

What about scouters, all of whom subscribe to a statement of religious principle? Would Article VI apply here as well?

 

You lawyers out there ...let's hear from you.

[Laurie]

Maybe I'm too simple minded, but doesn't every judge have opinions and ideas that could possibly color his view of what he hears? Will imposing rules remove what the judge feels inside? Will it truly make him/her less capable of learning, understanding, and accurately applying law?

[eisely]

Laurie,

 

You are absolutely correct. Every judge, just like every juror and every prosecutor, brings a great deal of intellectual baggage if you will, into every case. Most of the time it is sufficient to expect judges in particular to recognize their biases and set them aside in their decision making. In extreme situations we want to exclude some people, like known members of the Klu Klux Klan. But, on a daily basis, the sytem relies on the good faith and ethical sensibility of judges to deal with their biases and even financial interests.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

eisely writes:

In extreme situations we want to exclude some people, like known members of the Klu Klux Klan.

 

But instead of a blacklist of specific organizations, the ABA has general rules, like not belonging to organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, because it's a matter of general ethical principles. If "sexual orientation" is added, the Boy Scouts will be excluded automatically because that organization doesn't meet the ABA's ethical standards.

 

It's interesting to note that judges in California can't join the KKK, but CAN join the Klan Youth Corps, because the California rules specifically exclude all youth organizations from their rules on judges belonging to discriminatory organizations (which was done solely for the BSA, of course).

[Fat Old Guy]

"But instead of a blacklist of specific organizations, the ABA has general rules, like not belonging to organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, because it's a matter of general ethical principles."

 

However, just because a person isn't a member of an organization doesn't mean that he doesn't support their mission or share their beliefs. Years ago, I knew a fellow who was a "gun rights activist" in his area. He did not belong to the NRA because he wanted to tell the press that he wasn't a member of NRA. He did support the organization, he just wasn't on their roles.

 

 

[Big_Dog]

This is more than PC run amok, this could be the beginning of anarchy. If a judge with a certain set of morals can't judge a homosexual, then a homosexual judge is not qualified to judge me because I belong to several groups that believe in a set of morals that condemn that judge. If that statement is hard to follow, imagine how difficult the process would be to follow!

 

bd

[NJCubScouter]

Big Dog says:

 

This is more than PC run amok, this could be the beginning of anarchy.

 

Uh huh. Maybe you need to calm down a little. If this country does begin to slide into anarchy, somehow I am doubtful that it is going to be an amendment to the Canons of Judicial Ethics that starts the ball rolling.