Merlyn_LeRoy Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/C...ay-6036874.php The state Supreme Court has voted to prohibit judges in California from belonging to the Boy Scouts because the 2.7 million-member youth organization bars gays and lesbians from becoming troop leaders. The court announced Friday that its seven justices had voted unanimously to accept a February 2014 recommendation from its ethics advisory committee to ban Boy Scout membership. As of Wednesday, judges affiliated with the Scouts were in violation of the state Code of Judicial Ethics, which the court oversees, and could face removal from office. ... [basically, they removed the exemption for youth groups that was inserted a few years ago just for the BSA] Here's the code with changes in strikeout, the BSA changes start on page 12: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwazse Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Can state rules for candidacy be appealed in federal court, or does this have to wait until a judges is disbarred? I don't know much about a state's right to limit the freedom of association of holder's of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Thanks for including the link Merlyn. The strikeout areas clearly stated the previous reason for exemption, as quoted below These exemptions are necessary because membership in United States military organizations is subject to current valid military regulations, and religious beliefs are constitutionally protected. Membership in nonprofit youth organizations is not barred to accommodate individual rights of intimate association and free expression. Both are gone despite the stated constitutiional reasons! However the religious exemption is still in effect. A California judge could still be a member of a religious group that preached/practiced discrimination! ??So is there a judge and common sense shortage in California?? Are they looking to hire foreign judges from the Middle East via a H1-B program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwazse Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 ??So is there a judge and common sense shortage in California?? Are they looking to hire foreign judges from the Middle East via a H1-B program? Is there even a judge in California who is a member of the BSA? Most judges I've met have not been. They typically keep their associations in general to a minimum. They've counseled MBs, but only recently was membership required to be an MBC. I hope BSA finds a way to waive that, because the one thing that we do want is for members of office to have opportunities to personally guide our nation's youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I hope BSA finds a way to waive that' date=' because the one thing that we do want is for members of office to have opportunities to personally guide our nation's youth.[/quote'] Like claiming we are a religious group? IMO, the bigger issue is the erosion of our constitutional rights at federal, state, and even local levels. Banned in Boston now means that city employees can not criticize Boston's bid for 2024 Olympics. No free expression for you. That said, I can see reclusing a judge for conflict of interest but not prohibiting from outside legal interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Bay Scouter Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Is there even a judge in California who is a member of the BSA? Quite a few actually. I've had the pleasure of working with three myself in different councils. One was even a Council President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 Both are gone despite the stated constitutiional reasons! The military exemption is gone because it's no longer needed after the ban on gays was lifted. However the religious exemption is still in effect. A California judge could still be a member of a religious group that preached/practiced discrimination! ??So is there a judge and common sense shortage in California?? When I brought this up back when the BSA exemption was created, I pointed out that people didn't seem to care that CA judges couldn't join e.g. the KKK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 The military exemption is gone because it's no longer needed after the ban on gays was lifted. Discrimination against women in the military remains an issue, so IMO the military exemption is still needed for judges to serve at least according to the intent here. When I brought this up back when the BSA exemption was created, I pointed out that people didn't seem to care that CA judges couldn't join e.g. the KKK. Before a judge joins a group must membership be pre-approved by a judicial committee? I take it judges are appointed in CA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 "Before a judge joins a group must membership be pre-approved by a judicial committee?" It looks to me like they just can't join a group that practices "invidious discrimination". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I started to respond to some of the comments, and then realized that it kind of misses the point to discuss how some outside group or institution is reacting to a policy I don't support in the first place. The issue here is not the California Supreme Court, it's the BSA. Change the bad policy, then nobody will have to decide how to respond to it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 "Invidious" is an interesting word given that most discrimination is lawful but still capable of causing anger in those negatively impacted and others who feel the discrimination is wrong. A decision based on state law. Given that Boy Scouting is the official youth program for boys in the LDS Church and given that any adult member is subject to being called to serve as a Scouter or in some other capacity in Boy Scouting, may members of that church serve in judicial office in California? In fact, may those belonging to religions that discriminate against gays serve in judicial office? Or any public office? From the wording of the story, no, no, and no. But a more nuanced explanation may be forthcoming. Otherwise, we have a Test Act imposed by state law. ED: I looked further and find there is an exception for religious organizations. Why? Not sure how that plays out for the LDS folk. Freedom of association has never been absolute. Some groups are just too unpopular - in some places - at some times. Lawyers are said to be "officers of the court" in Ohio. In California? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalicoPenn Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 California is not the only state where the state supreme court (which puts in place the rules of behavior the judiciary must follow) has reules that a judge can't be a member of a discriminatory organization. I believe the number is up to 28. They are, however, the first not to exempt youth groups. It appears that the ethics advisory committee really couldn't reconcile a difference between adult organizations and youth groups in the stated reason for excluding youth groups from the earlier rules. Someone could certainly try to appeal the rules in federal court but they won't get very far - state's rights means the states get to make their own rules. I imagine a judge that is a member of the LDS church won't be called to be a Scoutmaster or scout leader. The BSA may be the "official youth program for boys" in the LDS church but that doesn't give protection regarding these rules because the BSA is an external program the LDS church has adopted, like any other chartered partner - it is not a program designed by and of the LDS church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 California is not the only state where the state supreme court (which puts in place the rules of behavior the judiciary must follow) has reules that a judge can't be a member of a discriminatory organization. I believe the number is up to 28. They are, however, the first not to exempt youth groups. It appears that the ethics advisory committee really couldn't reconcile a difference between adult organizations and youth groups in the stated reason for excluding youth groups from the earlier rules. Someone could certainly try to appeal the rules in federal court but they won't get very far - state's rights means the states get to make their own rules. I imagine a judge that is a member of the LDS church won't be called to be a Scoutmaster or scout leader. The BSA may be the "official youth program for boys" in the LDS church but that doesn't give protection regarding these rules because the BSA is an external program the LDS church has adopted, like any other chartered partner - it is not a program designed by and of the LDS church. Numerous state rules have been overturned by federal courts. Under Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, state law is subordinate to the Constitution and to federal law enacted in accordance with the Constitution. The States' Rights folks had their go at sustaining your point of view, and lost rather soundly by 1865. As to who has "designed" the Scouting program used by the LDS Church, that would be, to a significant extent, the LDS Church. It is the youth program of the church, not a program of which it merely approves. It is not the same as Boy Scouting for, say, Methodists. As to "discriminatory organisation." that would include the Catholic Church and Reformed Judaism, both of which discriminate against not merely gays but females as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 [/b]As to "discriminatory organisation." that would include the Catholic Church and Reformed Judaism' date=' both of which discriminate against not merely gays but females as well.[/quote'] What you say there about Reform (not "Reformed") Judaism is incorrect. As a matter of policy within the Reform movement (which individual congregations are not obligated to follow, but I think most do), female and openly gay rabbis are permitted. In Orthodox Judaism, they are not. I suspect you have the two mixed up. (There is a movement in the middle Conservative, but I am not sure what their current policies are.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Oh yes. Wazamatter me? Orthodox.not Reform. Not even all Conservative these days (local option). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now