Search Engine Optimization and Free Submission

:: Netmarcos' Notes ::

Musings and rambling commentary on current events, politics, music, and other cultural issues mixed with a few personal references.
:: welcome to Netmarcos' Notes :: bloghome | contact ::
[:: (re)search ::]
:: google ::
:: Dog Pile::
:: Charters of Freedom ::
:: ThomasPaine.org ::
[:: news and opinion ::]
:: Opinion Journal ::
:: National Review Online ::
:: FOX ::
:: MSNBC ::
:: World Net Daily ::
:: The Drudge Report::
:: InstaPundit ::
[:: blogosphere ::]
:: Day by Day Cartoon ::
:: James Lileks ::
:: ScrappleFace ::
:: Moxie ::
:: The Dissident Frogman::
:: Insignificant Thoughts::
:: Dave Barry ::
[:: España ::]
:: Atlas of Spain ::
:: EL MUNDO ::
:: DIALNET::Búsqueda de articulos científicos en español
:: Prestige: exigimos responsabilidades
[:: archive ::]

:: Monday, July 14, 2003 ::

More comentary on the pathetic state of the American judiciary from Barbara Simpson:: WorldNetDaily: Justice in America: Anything but blind
The California Supreme Court ruled last month that if a judge has been either a member of the Boy Scouts or volunteers with the organization, they have to admit it. In other words, in cases where sexual orientation is key, the assigned judge must either recuse himself (drop out of the case) or disclose his connection with the Boy Scouts so the lawyers can decide whether to ask for his removal. This ruling gives them the power to do that.

She goes on:
As for the court ruling, what's next? If guilt by association is valid, should we require full and total disclosure of everything? We're already seeing how pro-life candidates for judicial nominations are excoriated for their belief.

How about having full religious disclosure? After all, those Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims and other belief systems have some pretty strong positions on issues that are not necessarily politically correct. Maybe we should weed them out too, or at least label them.

How about judges who are (you should excuse the expression) patriotic? Should they be disqualified from a treason case? What about their political views? Should a Republican hear the case of a Democrat? A black hear a "white" case? An atheist hear a religious case?

I have to agree. We are in a lot of trouble here, and it will only get worse.

:: Mark 5:11 PM [+] ::
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?