Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

Sexuality and Legality

This article talks about whether a judge's sexuality affects his ability to rule on legal issues.  It doesn't.

It's worth thinking about because there is no unmarked case, no way to be uninvolved in the category.  Everyone has a sexuality.  Similarly, everyone has a gender and an ethnic background.  Those groups often have opinions or advantages/disadvantages relating to legal issues.  There is no "outside" to be.  In such instances, if you ruled out everyone whose identity involved them in the issue, the number of remaining humans would be 0.  So then, those are not eligible reasons for a judge to recuse himself from a case.
Tags: gender studies, news, politics
Subscribe

  • A Little Slice of Terramagne: YardMap

    Sadly the main program is dormant, but the YardMap concept is awesome, and many of its informative articles remain. YardMap was a citizen science…

  • Winterfest in July Bingo Card 7-1-21

    Here is my card for the Winterfest in July Bingo fest. It runs from July 1-30. Celebrate all the holidays and traditions of winter! ( See all my…

  • Bingo

    I have made bingo down the B, G, and O columns of my 6-1-21 card for the Cottoncandy Bingo fest. I also have one extra fill. B1 (caretaking) --…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 4 comments
msstacy13

msstacy13

June 17 2011, 13:00:08 UTC 10 years ago

A federal judge has denied Prop 8 proponents' frivolous motion

Erm...
the federal court did not rule the motion frivolous, did they?
It's not frivolous to question the impartiality
of a judge who has something to gain personally from a ruling he renders.

All the same, I'm not arguing with decision,
I'm just annoyed with article and its writer.
ysabetwordsmith

Well...

ysabetwordsmith

June 17 2011, 16:15:03 UTC 10 years ago

I believe "frivolous" was supposed to apply to the motion to dismiss the judge.

>>It's not frivolous to question the impartiality
of a judge who has something to gain personally from a ruling he renders.<<

If he personally has more to gain than an average person, that's so. But in this case, there's no way to be unaffected: everyone has a sexuality. So it's not relevant. The ruling upholds the general stance that a person's basic traits are not reason to recuse him from a case.
msstacy13

Re: Well...

msstacy13

June 17 2011, 16:54:59 UTC 10 years ago

In this instance, that was never actually the question,
but that is how the gayjacking school of journalism
wishes it to be misconstrued.

Does the fact that a judge actually has something to gain
from his own decision compromise his impartiality?

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the decision,
only with the pretense which surrounds the reporting.
msstacy13

Maybe I should explain this again..

msstacy13

June 17 2011, 17:23:18 UTC 10 years ago

Doctor Dobsen is a liar,
and the CitizenLink crowd dishonest.
So long as we oppose that dishonesty
with a scrupuolous, impeccable honesty,
we will win.

If we oppose their dishonesty with dishonesty of our own,
we'll lose, because people given a choice
between two lies or two liars,
will choose the lie and liar
they're most comfortable with.