Discussion for article #240325
I cannot wait for defendents sentenced by this judge to start filing motions for their cases to be reviewed on the basis of not receiving an impartial arbiter of the law, since personal prejudices and a willingness to disobey the law seems to be an issue here.
39 Likes
Get rid of him. He’s just declared publicly that he’s incapable of being impartial. Unfit to sit the bench.
26 Likes
And THIS is the reason we need to hit back at these “refuseniks” as hard as possible. They see the spotlight that Davis garnered and think they can position themselves on the cross as well. They’ve got to learn the hard way that the worst that can come out of this isn’t martyrdom.
13 Likes
who knew that prejudice ran so deep in Oregon…
in addition to judicial hompophobes…
I guess inbreeding is preferred…
2 Likes
I presume the judge would recuse himself from a murder trial wherein a man killed his unfaithful wife and her lover upon discovering them in bed together?
Deuteronomy 22:22 - If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
8 Likes
As much as I find these religion based conscientious objections…deeply objectionable, I have to ask: what impartiality is he really revealing here? I think you could ask for a recusal now if you were, say, a gay couple with a contested divorce, or a gay parent coming out seeking equitable custody as part of a hetero divorce. But I don’t see how this automatically makes him unfit for rulings on, say, civil torts unrelated to gay marriage. I don’t see it rising to the level of impeachment.
I think the case in KY is pretty clear: she’s trying to use her personal exemption to take away the rights of others - blocking any access. So long as same-sex couples can obtain civil ceremonies from friendly magistrates in the same jurisdictions, and so long as civil marriages are not an explicitly required duty for judges, self-recusal (of sorts) seems reasonable.
4 Likes
Agreed. And blacks in the pre-Civil Rights era eventually could have found a lunch counter to serve them if only they walked enough miles looking for one.
12 Likes
No more marriage licenses, no more marriages officiated by public officials.
Get stupid out of the marriage business.
2 Likes
And there is going to be a bunch more of this shit until a real Judge rules in favor of America and not his political or religious beliefs. At some point “We the People” as these assholes like to say have a right to the services we pay these phonies for.
A a question for the good Judge: if you feel this strongly about this…to the point of doing this…can you tell us how many times you have ruled from that fucking bench with your “personal reasons” directing you? How many people are suffering you rulings guided by those damn “personal reasons”. It’s not a stretch to imagine you’ve done this…an egregious violation of all things Judicial in America.
3 Likes
In that short quip you have put a ton of Rand Paul stupid into it.
5 Likes
Hey asshole #2, or is it #3? Anyway YOU are not above the law and should lose your judgeship immediately!
All cases that you have sat in judgement on, should be thrown out!
3 Likes
Jesus wasn’t enamored of building permits and zoning laws, either. I can’t find any Biblical citations where he advocated their necessity. Let’s do away with those, too.
5 Likes
You don’t see a Judge…a man that is put on a bench to do just that judge…with the law and impartiality guiding those judgements…refusing to do that job because of “personal reasons”? He’s not supposed to have “personal reasons” that direct his official work. He obviously does have them and worse has HAD them steering his rudder when he made judgments in that past.
Your position would be a good one if you were talking about a private citizen, one of those bakers for instance but not a public employee that is sworn to uphold the law…with no “personal reasons” exemption in that oath. That oath was before the very God he prohibits him from complying with it. Rectify that if you can.
3 Likes
Well, the anti California sentiment has always been there in Portland. My understanding is all the cool Californians moved to Portland in the early 70s and decided they didn’t want any other ones following.
But on a serious note, Oregon isn’t all Portland. When you get out into the state, particularly away from the coastline, you can run into some very redneck pockets.
3 Likes
If he is not required by law to perform marriages, then I would imagine there is nothing to be done.
2 Likes
If you were as gay American in his courtroom, would you be comfortable about getting fair and even treatment?
Judges who’s can’t separate their personal feelings from their jobs should resign. It’s the only honorable thing to so.
8 Likes
We had no idea that you were even in the marriage business, Cupcake.
Since marriage in the US is a contact at civil law, we must have legal government-issued licenses for such a contract.
8 Likes
I believe the concern is that he has just publicly stated this his personal beliefs are so strong, that they make him unable to perform certain functions required by his job as a judge.
That’s a problem. A judge is supposed to be able to put aside his/her personal beliefs and impartially deal with the facts set before her/him. If he cannot, as he is publicly indicating here, then its a very valid question to raise as to what other personal beliefs of his he is unable to put aside when hearing a case.
For me, personally however, I am skeptical of the whole “personal belief” line anyway. These people tend to pick and choose their religious objection in surprising accordance with their political beliefs and what the current “issue of the day” is.
13 Likes
Or they could have just eaten at home, or brought their own lunch. See? No one was forced to go hungry, they just needed to learn to respect the freedoms and “deeply held” beliefs of the lunch counter employees not to serve them, and be reasonable about it.
1 Like