|California to possibly ban Boy Scouts as judges..||ClydeTri|
Jan 27, 2003 9:21 AM
|one word: unconstitutional nm||DougSloan|
Jan 27, 2003 10:50 AM
|Why would it be unconstitutional to discriminate against people||bill|
Jan 27, 2003 11:32 AM
|who, under the law of your jurisdiction, practice illegal discrimination? I don't know that the First Amendment protects the right of people who practice illegal discrimination to be judges. What else you got?
I also think that it's a bit silly, mostly because most rank and file Boy-Scouters think that the ban against homosexuals is silly and because the number of judges who are likely to be kicked off the bench because they happen to serve as Boy Scout leaders (I assume that the ban is limited to practicing Boy Scouts) is, I'm sure, miniscule.
Come to think of it, it's all silly, and I'm sure that no one is making more of it than the liberal media elite -- oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, the truth-talking conservative minority media elite.
|ever hear of the First Amendment?||DougSloan|
Jan 27, 2003 12:05 PM
|First of all, you are assuming that membership in a group means that *that person* has practiced illegal discrimination. You know that's not true.
Second, if the root of the claimed discriminatory conduct/beliefs is solely a legitimately religious view, (e.g., Baptists' disapproval of homosexuality), then you are, in effect, instituting a "religious" test for approval of government employees, which we all know is unconstitutional. (The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Art. VI, section 3.)
Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, 14th Amendment equal protection, due process, no religious test... where should we start? This idea could be thrown out on multiple grounds.
|Lawyer fight, lawyer fight, lawyer fight!!!!!!! (nm)||eyebob|
Jan 27, 2003 12:24 PM
|lol. Won't last long. No client to bill. ; ) nm||128|
Jan 27, 2003 12:41 PM
|I'm not saying that if you belong to the Boy Scouts you||bill|
Jan 27, 2003 12:53 PM
|have practiced discrimination yourself. To the contrary, I say is that the whole deal is kind of silly, because most of the rank and file Boy Scouts think that the Boy Scout ban is silly. Most are not supporting their right to discriminate; most think it's a non-issue. And who said anything about religious testing?
Now, I guess what you're saying is that, if the judge were a member of the Klu Klux Klan, he could not legally be prevented from sitting? Maybe he can't legally, I don't know what is the state of the law, but I would hope not.
Now there is a bit of difference between the Boy Scouts and the Klu Klux Klan, in that the Klan exists for no other purpose. I'm not sure that that is a conclusive difference, but it is a difference.
See where we go, though, with all of this silly peeping through windows? Look at what you have to do when you go down this road with, for example, analyzing whether your prejudice is based on, as you say, a "legitimate" religious belief. What's that? Is it any business of government to decide what's a legitimate religious belief? If society says no discrimination based on sexual orientation in state jobs, then there should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation, no matter how personally abhorrent you find the behavior.
This is what I don't get about conservatives. Conservatives say that they want government out of our lives, but they support discrimination based on the most intimate acts between human beings (or desires, for heavens sakes).
And, for my money, the most virulent anti-gay activists are protesting just a little too much.
Jan 27, 2003 1:47 PM
|I'm saying the judge can't be excluded for mere membership in any group, whether it's the KKK or the ACLU.
Speaking of which, recall that the ACLU defended the right of the KKK to march in Skokie. Defending someone's rights is not the same as agreeing with the substance of their beliefs.
I'm certainly not anti-gay; in fact, I'm anti-anyone telling someone else what they can do or believe, including judges.
As you note, this is not a fundamental aspect of the Boy Scouts. I doubt the issue plays even a miniscule role in any beliefs of almost all scout leadership. My belief is that as a private organization, they can run it any way they want to.
Should the government be able to ban judges for religious beliefs or memberships? I think we all know the answer to that. This isn't any different, and likely related.
|so, you think that a judge could not be removed from the||bill|
Jan 27, 2003 3:16 PM
|bench constitutionally for belonging to the KKK?
I'm not sure how I feel about that, because I believe that thought and association should be given wide latitude, with actions a little more tightly regulated but mostly left for other processes to determine whether someone gets the gig, but I would draw the line somewhere, and I probably would draw it there. How about the Nazi party?
I guess this is the way it would go down in the real world. The nominee would be vetted and would have revealed his associations, and then when the word leaked that the guy actually wore a hood on Saturday nights (or, as the case may be, khaki uniforms and kerchiefs), he would get dinged for lieing about it.
And, Doug, you may be more libertarian than your conservative friends, but man those people can be judgmental. I think that there's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of the spectrum about stuff like that; it's just what you are comfortable controlling.
I sort of agree with conservatives about, for example, hate crime legislation when they say that the motivation to injure someone is either criminal or not, whether it's motivated by hate or greed or whatever, but I remain bothered by the sneaking suspicion that what the conservatives really want is to be able to hate without opprobrium. Maybe that's not entirely fair, but xenophobia and miscegenation disapproval and sexual preference inquiry and intolerance and misogyny seem to emanate from conservative gatherings.
|Not on that grounds...||Matno|
Jan 27, 2003 8:02 PM
|As nuts as the KKK may be, thought control is still mostly avoided by our government. There is an absolute distinction that has to be made between what private individuals do (i.e. they have a RIGHT to discriminate - except in hiring under specific anti-discrimination laws) and what government officials do WHEN (and only when) acting in their official responsibilities. Personally, I doubt it's much of an issue in the case of the KKK, since the chances of a member of that organization (or any similar purely racist organization) would EVER get appointed, elected, or otherwise put in a judgeship is virtually nil in this country. On the other hand, a very large percentage of scout leaders are associated with religious groups who teach that homosexuality is wrong. (Not to mention the Scout Oath which states "...to keep myself...morally straight." You might be surprised by how many judges are or have been involved with the Boy Scouts. Sadly, the number of boys who are involved is dwindling. Unfortunately, there aren't really any alternatives, so the kids who don't have the chance to be in scouting are ending up without a wonderful preparation for all aspects of life. (That's my plug as a current scoutmaster).|
|Careful with Debra Saunders...she's got a definite point of view||cory|
Jan 27, 2003 3:08 PM
|I've read her for years in the San Francisco Chronicle, and she has a tendency to inflate the facts that support her view and deflate those that don't. There's certainly some truth in what she's said here, but I'd want to check a second and possibly third source before I got too indignant.|
|re: California to possibly ban Boy Scouts as judges..||Alpedhuez55|
Jan 27, 2003 5:48 PM
|Demonizing the Boy Scouts is wrong. The organization does a lot for children and the community. They may have views that disagree with some people. Then those people can start a Gay Scouting Group if they choose. To actually go to the point of refusing a prospective Judge he cannot be a Scout Leader is just wrong. I think the court needs to reconsider their priorities.
Will they kick out a male judge if he is a member of the local Elks Lodge? How about a female judge if she belongs to a woman's only health club? You could say both of these organizations have discriminatory practices of exclusion. This shows everything that is wrong about Political Correctness.
|Judges are ethically bound to avoid even the 'appearance of||128|
Jan 28, 2003 6:08 AM
|impropriety', as I recall. The Constitution still applies of course, but this additioanal standard would probably have to be considered in conjunction with the Con. standards and the elevated role of judges.|| |