Lawmaker seeks to impeach judge on homophobia ruling

Denver Post ^ | Friday, March 19, 2004 | Colleen Slevin

[beaversmom]

A state lawmaker wants to impeach a Denver judge who ordered a former lesbian not to teach her child anything homophobic, a decision that critics of judicial activism say is more troubling than recent court rulings supporting gay marriage.

Rep. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, introduced a resolution today that starts the impeachment process against Denver District Judge John Coughlin.

The judge ruled in a case involving Dr. Cheryl Clark and her former partner, Elsey McLeod. The couple split up after Clark converted to Christianity, and Coughlin ruled last April that they can share custody of their adopted daughter. The judge gave Clark sole responsibility for the child's religious upbringing but told her not to expose her to anything "that can be considered homophobic."

Brophy said the ruling shows blatant disregard for the state and federal constitutions and could clear the way for anyone from baby sitters to former boyfriends to fight for custody of a child, even if though they don't have a legal relationship to a child.

Coughlin's clerk said the judge had no comment.

The ruling is under appeal but Brophy said he thinks the case is such an outrageous example of judicial activism that the state Legislature needs to act before adjourning in May so other judges won't follow the precedent.

"If you look at the First Amendment of the Constitution, how can you not say this is a case where a judge has stolen the religious liberty of someone?" Brophy said.

He faces a difficult battle in the Republican-controlled Legislature, with both Senate President John Andrews and Gov. Bill Owens opposing the move (Joint Resolution 1007). Brophy said he is close to winning the support of half of the House's GOP members but he has not won the endorsement of House Speaker Lola Spradley.

"Impeachment is a last resort for cases of gross wrongdoing or clear unfitness of character," Andrews said. "It should not be used to settle policy differences, even something as highly charged as this case." Owens said he is worried about judges ruling beyond their authority but called Brophy's action "inappropriate, excessive and uncalled for." If the House approves the request for impeachment, Coughlin would be put on trial in the Senate.

Chuck Gosnell, president of the Christian Coalition of Colorado, said Coughlin's ruling in effect recognizes gay divorce and the parenting rights of couples who were never married. He said his organization would work to gain support for impeachment through its members and churches.

"Judge Coughlin has clearly shown that the tyranny of the black robe must be stopped here in Colorado," Gosnell said.

Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, a Baptist minister and a law student, said supporters of Brophy's effort were trying to punish Coughlin for not following a narrow moral agenda. He also accused Republicans of trying to avenge their loss in a bitter battle over redistricting last year.

Coughlin is the judge who redrew the state's congressional districts in 2002 after lawmakers failed to agree on new boundaries following the 2000 census. Republican lawmakers then enacted a new map last year but Coughlin's was later upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Brophy, a first-term lawmaker, said he didn't realize the connection until after he started working on impeaching Coughlin.

The House has voted to impeach three people in its history, but all resigned to avoid a trial.

[Unam Sanctam]

"Impeachment is a last resort for cases of gross wrongdoing or clear unfitness of character," Andrews said. "It should not be used to settle policy differences, even something as highly charged as this case."

What muddled thinking! This is not a "policy difference", it is the case of a judge denying religious liberty to a citizen.

[CzarNicky]

at last a bit of sanity prevails

[rottndog]

Failing impeachment, they should find a noose and the closest tree....

[thoughtomator]

That's too merciful. Drawing and quartering is more just.

[rottndog]

I didn't say hang him by the neck.

[thoughtomator]

Amen

[jwalsh07]

Thanks, you saved me the trouble but I will comment on the gutlessness of the legislators and point out that this is the reason the the FMA is necessary. Legislators just don't have the wherewithal or the votes to rein in judges gone wild.

[KC_Conspirator]

Its about time someone started impeaching judges because of their tyranny from the bench.

[lowbridge]

I didn't say hang him by the neck.

You mean marry him off to Hillary?

[supercat]

Failing impeachment, they should find a noose and the closest tree....

I don't know. It's been too long since officials have had to worry about being tarred and feathered.

[rottndog]

OOOOO that's harsh.

[B Knotts]

Bill Owens disappoints on this. He seems to show a cowardly side.

[tutstar]

what a crock!

But it's probably A-OK for the child to read something like another child found in their school library.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1100893/posts

[rottndog]

That's the whole problem. If they knew that they couldn't and wouldn't get away with their totalitarianism, they would do what they are supposed to do and UPHOLD the law.

[Sofa King]

It hasn't prevailed yet. Let's see if this guy actually gets thrown out on his ass before we start celebrating.

[WOSG]

This kind of talk was shared in another thread about another questionable ruling. I didnt think much of it, but someone spoke out vehemently that it was in bad taste and wrong. In retrospect, he was right. If DUmmies said this stuff about Bush, we'd be livid and rightly so.

I dont think it is wise or appropriate to express our frustrations with illegitimate judicial activism by advocating violence of any kind, even in a joking manner. This is not any real answer, it tarnishes FR as a place of advocating violence, and creates heat not light. And who knows if a kook would take it seriously and do harm?
Bad judges need to be removed from responsibility not attacked physically or given death threats - That's the way of terrorists.

Now, impeachment and using Article III section 2 power to regulate the powers of the judicial branch to restore judicial restraint and the rule of law - yes.
Vigilante behavior or jokes about it - no.

[thoughtomator]

You're correct, and I do apologize. It is only because it could not be seriously considered a proper course of action that I saw it fit for humor. Impeachment is definitely something that must be pursued in earnest, and in volume.

[beaversmom]

Even though I live in Colorado I don't follow state politics that closely (more interested in national/global affairs) but I believe Owen's has been a mushy conservative on several things if I'm remembering correctly--guns and immigration are coming to mind but I can't remember the exact stories.

[rottndog]

What happens when all of the afore mentioned options don't work? Do we just lay down and submit to dictatorial judges?
What good are laws when they are ignored by those charged with upholding them?