California Asks Judges Sexual Preference: Fair?
|
|
|||||
|
79 votes
|
|
89% | |||
|
10 votes
|
|
11% | |||
In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.
“[The Administrative Office of the Courts] is contacting all judges and justices to gather data on race/ethnicity, gender identification, and sexual orientation,” reads an email sent by Romunda Price of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
“For the past five years, the AOC has been required to collect and release aggregate demographic data relative to the ethnicity, race, and gender of justices and judges, by specific jurisdiction, on or before March 1 of each year. This requirement is associated with efforts to obtain new judgeships.”
Philip R. Carrizosa of the executive office of communications at the Judicial Council of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts confirmed the memo's accuracy and explained: “The original bill, which simply provided for 50 new judgeships, was amended in the Assembly in August 2006, to address concerns that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not appointing enough women and minorities to the bench. In 2011, Senator Ellen Corbett expanded the reporting requirement to include gender identification and sexual orientation.”
I wonder how this will unfold as same-sex marriage issues come before judges. Radicals will undoubtedly want to release this data and use it to attack heterosexual judges who rule against them in same-sex marriage cases.
Read More: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/california-ask...
Top Opinion
-
Bozette 2012/02/28 02:38:17
That the information might be used against heterosexual judges handing down unfavorable rulings in marriage cases seems rather paranoid...especially considering that in the major case where a gay judge ruled favorably, the accusation was that it was due to his sexuality affecting his impartiality as he had something to gain from the outcome.
Considering further that most people are straight, and most straight people where their heterosexuality on their sleeves (wedding rings, families, etc.)...I don't see how this information will expose straight judges to new radical ridicule.
Californians are getting what they deserve, and their gonna keep getting it untill the get really sick of retards running their state, and we here in Jersey aren't far behind.
I'm sure some douche bag democrat is allready figureing a way they can ask our judges if their homo's, why? Because thats who they are, and, their retards!
This will be used by unsuccessful litigants and criminal defendants to claim prejudice and demand a retrial, no matter how fair the original decision may have been.
"Radicals will undoubtedly want to release this data and use it to attack heterosexual judges who rule against them in same-sex marriage cases."
While that is a concern of your's, this isn't fact.
Gender, like hair color, is unimportant to most litigants as compared to a judge being vocally pro abortion, anti gun, or supporting or practicing an alternate lifestyle.
And I did say "should".
As to the importance to litigants, I think the point is to try to ensure that the population generally interpreting laws represents the diversity of the overall population.
Yes, this somehow seems wrong; but discrimination against gays is wrong, as well, and can definitely lead to unjust judicial decisions - after all, all-white judges and juries have indeed sent blacks to jail for the same crimes whites have been slapped on the wrist for.
Is there another way to address these problems?
This is the road that is destroying the basic fabric of our country. The Progressives have gotten very little pushback and are emboldened. Watch and see.