Outcome on California judges

[eisely 13]

If the following story off of Reuters is accurate, state judges in California will have to disclose their affiliation with BSA is asked to do so. Presumably this may become a basis for disqualification or recusal in some kinds of cases.

 

This could cut both ways. Judges who may be affiliated with gay support groups could be compelled to disclose that information as well. One wonders if this would go so far as requiring judges to to disclose their sexual orientation.

____________________

 

June 19

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California judges may have to disqualify themselves from certain cases if they are involved with the Boy Scouts of America, according to new rules approved by the state's Supreme Court.

 

Lynn Holton, a spokeswoman for the state Supreme Court, said on Thursday that several California judges are leaders or members of the Boy Scouts, a group that has come under legal fire from gay groups because it bars "avowed homosexuals" from membership.

 

According to the new rules approved on Wednesday for state judges, "A judge should disclose to the parties his or her membership in an organization, in any proceeding in which the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider this information relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge concludes there is no actual basis for disqualification."

 

The Supreme Court did not, however, limit judges from being associated with the youth group, which has about 3.3 million youth members and 1.2 million adult leaders. More than 110 million Americans have joined the Boy Scouts since the organization was founded in 1910.

 

"We're pleased that the Supreme Court rejected a proposal to bar judges from membership in the Boy Scouts," said Gregg Shields, national spokesman for the BSA based in Irving, Texas. "The proposal which they declined to adopt would have unconstitutionally interfered with First Amendment association rights."

 

The Scouts' approach to homosexuality has long fueled controversy. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Boy Scouts had the right to exclude homosexuals.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Eisely, I am curious. Would BSA eject a female leader who was lesbian? Anyone know if this has happened? Maybe this has been answered in another forum.

[saltheart 10]

Finally, it has happened. The very first of our 50 states to openly condemn the BSA...as an state, not just individuals jousting with the BSA and its position. But an entire state!!

 

That is truly amazing. And it would seem to speak volumes regarding where the millions of residents in that state stand.

 

Yes, I know that's one heck of a lousy generalization. But, fact seems to be that there's no voice being put to the issue by those who would say that this is not representative of the population, only of the elected and appointed officials. (Is there a difference?)

 

How can Scouting survive in an atmosphere so negatively charged against the BSA?

[packsaddle 753]

Saltheart, I think you're overstating this. The ruling may have implications for BSA but it is essentially a clarification of a principle regarding conflict of interest. It should apply equally to judges who also happen to be leaders in the KKK. In any case it falls far short of condemnation by an entire state. As for how BSA can survive, I think that was addressed in an earlier thread (BSA is dying).

[Bob White 20]

Saltheart,

WHAT???

The state did not condemn Scouting or the BSA. They said that a judge must make known their membership in any organization that might have an effect on his/her decision in a trial. That means if there is a business leader on trial and the judge is a member of Rotary. It is no different. Why did you not see this ruling as the state of California condemning Rotary?

 

Packsaddle,

Yes, the same rule that would restrict an avowed homosexual male from scouting would restrict an avowed homosexual women from scouting. This is not an issue of the scouts being in danger. This is about behavior and values in keeping with the Oath and Law.

 

Bob White

 

[packsaddle 753]

Bob White, thanks.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Well, California has always been the land of fruits and nuts!!!

[saltheart 10]

Well, it would appear that my post above was one of my more misdirected and ill-thought-out posts, as I was attempting to read the OP here, and 2 other magazine articles all at the same time. Such as it is, the information flow from eye to brain resulted in one very bad post....sorry for that folks.

[dsteele 20]

Saltheart --

 

I don't think you were that far off the mark. I've talked with Greg Shields a few times over the years and his quote in the article tells me that there was indeed an attempt to block judges from being involved with the BSA.

 

This quote, from the court spokesman, however, cuts both ways.

 

"A judge should disclose to the parties his or her membership in an organization, in any proceeding in which the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider this information relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge concludes there is no actual basis for disqualification."

 

If I were a BSA attorney in a California Court and the judge was a member of any one of the gay rights organizations who are attacking us, I would certainly want to know and would use it against him.

 

In the interest of playing on a level field, if I were representing the ACLU or one of those other groups (IT would be cold on the ground because hades would have frozen over, but that's not important right now) I would also want to know if the judge was a member of the BSA.

 

In either case, I would ask the judge to recuse himself/herself.

 

DS

[Eamonn 61]

Have to admit that I don't know very much about California Judges.

Do they have to list every organization that they have ties to ?

Are these Judges elected ?

If I were to appear in front of one, do I have the right to say "No not him, because he is a member of some organization that I don't agree with ?"

If these Judges are elected, surely they would list what organizations they belong to and the people would get what they voted for.

I don't think that I will apply for the job anyway. That will show them!!

[evmori 11]

Eamon,

I guess you could ask a judge to recuse him/herself if they were a member of an organization who didn't agree with your side of the case. This will only yie up the courts with more frivilous junk.

 

Notice how this only came after the Supreme Court ruling?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[eisely 13]

Judges on the Supreme Court in California are appointed and subject to periodic retention elections under what is sometimes called the "Missouri ballot." The idea is that voters have a chance to periodically vote to remove a sitting judge on a non partisan ballot. This is how we got rid of Rose Bird from the California Supreme Court in the late 80's. It is called a "Missouri ballot" because this idea of a retention election originated in Missouri when the state constitution was re-written in the middle of the last century.

 

I have lived in California for several years now and am embarrased to say that I really don't recall right now if we elect judges below the Supreme Court or if they are appointed.

 

Be that as it may, litigants have always had a general right to challenge any judge, but this right is exercised rarely and only for very good cause. Disclosure of interests by judges is an important part of this process.

 

There is a joke about a judge starting a trial with an announcement, "Before we begin I have to announce that the plaintiff's attorney gave me a $2,000 bribe to favor his client. The defendant's attorney gave me a $3,000 bribe to favor her client. To maintain fairness, I am hereby returning $1,000 to the defendant's attorney."

[MarkNoel 10]

Here are a couple of recent articles on the subject of CA judges and the BSA:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-scouts19jun19,1,3338863.story

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6144787.htm

 

And here's an excerpt from the LA Times story that might answer a few questions:

 

"""

Because the Scouting group bans gays, judges must disclose membership when it has "the potential to give an appearance of partiality," the court said in amending the state's Code of Judicial Ethics.

 

The court added language to the ethics code suggesting that judges disqualify themselves from cases where membership in an anti-gay group could be viewed as a conflict.

. . . .

The Code of Judicial Ethics prohibits judges from belonging to groups that discriminate against minorities, women and gays, but exempts nonprofit youth organizations.

"""

 

Basically, the BSA already had its own exemption carved out in the CA Code of Judical Ethics (it's widely understood that the exemption for nonprofit youth organizations was put in specifically for the BSA.) Several bar associations -- such as San Francisco, no surprise there -- have been pushing to have this exemption removed. So they're really targeting an exemption that targets the BSA rather than targeting the BSA directly.

 

For whatever difference THAT distinction makes, of course...

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

[Scoutmaster Ron 12]

kwc57

 

Don't hate on Calif. ha ha

[littlebillie 10]

well, the ruling is fair if applied across the board to all organizations and all special interests. I mean, singling out Boy Scouts for gays should also extend to no GSUSA-associated judges trying boys, no Jewish judges trying Christians, no UW-donors trying charity fraud for ANYone...