skeptic 993 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-boy-scouts-judges-20140206,0,4158712.story#axzz2sgdUO049 If there actually was a conflict, why cannot they simply recuse themselves, or be asked to do so by others that see it as a problem? Not likely to be many cases in which this is a issue anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The issue is belonging to a discriminatory organization, NOT recusing themselves only from cases involving the Boy Scouts. California judges are likewise prohibited from joining the KKK, because that would reflect badly on all judges. Link to post Share on other sites
RememberSchiff 3671 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 From what I have read of California legal actions and its system perhaps this is a "good start". Link to post Share on other sites
Twocubdad 665 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 So "reflecting badly" is now the standard? You mean worse than being a member of the bar association? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 It never surprises me what comes out of California anymore. And the operative word here is "MAY" in the title. Nothing like making more press than what gets printed. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Reflecting badly has been the standard for a long time; it's only special exemptions carved out for "youth groups" (read: Boy Scouts) that has been holding this off. Link to post Share on other sites
Sentinel947 1205 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The panel noted that 22 states, including California, prohibit judges from belonging to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but only California exempts "nonprofit youth organizations" from that prohibition. The state's high court, which sets judicial ethics standards, adopted that exemption in 1996 to accommodate judges affiliated with the Boy Scouts. I'd say California has precedent to do this. Link to post Share on other sites
Sentinel947 1205 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The issue is belonging to a discriminatory organization, NOT recusing themselves only from cases involving the Boy Scouts. California judges are likewise prohibited from joining the KKK, because that would reflect badly on all judges.Let's jump off the cliff and compare the BSA to the KKK and California to Nazi Germany! Everybody ready? 1......2......3... Jump! All joking aside, California has been gunning for the BSA for a while, but I'm not sure that this move would stand up in court. Edit: looks like they thought about it before. http://able2know.org/topic/2294-1 Link to post Share on other sites
Sentinel947 1205 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Reflecting badly has been the standard for a long time; it's only special exemptions carved out for "youth groups" (read: Boy Scouts) that has been holding this off."Reflecting badly" is very subjective based. In a southern state, being a member of GLADD or Something might "reflect badly". California's standard is "The panel noted that 22 states, including California, prohibit judges from belonging to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but only California exempts "nonprofit youth organizations" from that prohibition. The state's high court, which sets judicial ethics standards, adopted that exemption in 1996 to accommodate judges affiliated with the Boy Scouts." Not "reflecting badly" but belonging to a discriminatory organization. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The issue is belonging to a discriminatory organization, NOT recusing themselves only from cases involving the Boy Scouts. California judges are likewise prohibited from joining the KKK, because that would reflect badly on all judges.Of course it would stand up in court -- right now the only thing keeping BSA membership is a special rule exempting youth groups, so removing that exemption is all it would take. Link to post Share on other sites
Sentinel947 1205 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 For legal scholars here, this applies just to judges correct? Can a state set those standards for any government worker? What about a business? Where does the 1st Amendment play in here? Link to post Share on other sites
Sentinel947 1205 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 The issue is belonging to a discriminatory organization, NOT recusing themselves only from cases involving the Boy Scouts. California judges are likewise prohibited from joining the KKK, because that would reflect badly on all judges.Yea I did a bit of research on it. It'll definetly stand up. Unless the original law wasn't challenged before. I'd imagine it was. Link to post Share on other sites
Scouter99 265 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Hopefully the leader in that photo was removed. Link to post Share on other sites
nextgenscouter1 23 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 These issue won't stop until BSA allows gay scout masters, make no mistake they don't care about gay rights it's just a way to destroy the BSA. So what must we do? It's simple they must lift the gay ban, then the issue is over. However, I have heard a good deal of grumbling from people who dislike the new policy, and this has even allowed new organizations to form. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 These issue won't stop until BSA allows gay scout masters, make no mistake they don't care about gay rights it's just a way to destroy the BSA. So what must we do? It's simple they must lift the gay ban, then the issue is over. However, I have heard a good deal of grumbling from people who dislike the new policy, and this has even allowed new organizations to form. First, the BSA's religious discrimination would still conflict with the California Code of Judicial Ethics, so simply removing the gay ban won't be sufficient. Second, the suggestion to remove youth groups (and military organizations) from the list exceptions was done internally by the state supreme court's own advisory committee. I doubt they want to "destroy" the BSA. Link to post Share on other sites
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