ENEMY JUDGE: No. 1 - Phyllis J. Hamilton

Note: this is the first in a series of judges whom I will be labeling as "the enemy." Despite the fact that I have been given credit for power I do not have and that the judges in this series probably deserve it, I don't think I am going to be responsible for any of them being beheaded.
===================================================

Appointed Federal District Judge, San Francisco by, you guessed it, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 2000
Appointed Magistrate Judge on April 2, 1991.
Born June 12, 1952 in Illinois
B.A. from Stanford University in 1974
J.D. from University of Santa Clara School of Law in 1976
Served as Deputy Public Defender at the California State Public Defender's Office in San Francisco (1976-1980)
Administrative Judge for the United States Merit Systems Protection Board in San Francisco (1980-1985)
Court Commissioner of the Municipal Court in Oakland (1985-1991)

The dear Ms. Hamilton, a San Francisco federal judge, has just used her power as a little king to strike down the ban on partial birth abortion. This is the same judge who ok'd Muslim prayer in school.

The same San Francisco federal judge who just overturned a federal law banning partial-birth abortions also approved of Muslim prayer in schools when federal rulings ban all other denominational prayers and activities.

In a December 2003 decision, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton decided that it was lawful for a California middle school teacher to require students to recite Muslim prayers, get down on their knees and role-play as Muslim adherents.

As part of the class students were told to recite: "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of Creation, The Compassionate, the Merciful, King of Judgment-day! You alone we worship, and to You alone we pray for help, Guide us to the straight path."

The Byron County 7th-grade world history teacher was sued by the parents of one of the students, who claimed that their child had been coerced to engage in a religious practice.

The teacher prepared a student guide which said that as part of the study of Islam "you and your classmates will become Muslims."

According to court documents, the teacher also read the Koran and Muslim prayers out loud in class and required students to recite lines of Muslim prayers in class as well.

Students also were told to recite Islamic prayers as they exited the class, including the Muslim refrain "In the name of God, most merciful, most gracious."

The teacher also assigned students to fast or give up something like TV for a day to experience Islam's month of Ramadan and one of its pillars of faith.

At the end of their Islamic studies, students also were required to write an essay on Islam. But, but the teacher instructed her students, "BE CAREFUL HERE – If you don't have something positive to say, don't say anything!!!"

In her ruling, Judge Hamilton threw out the parents' case, saying the religious role-playing was not tantamount to the exercise of religion and the school activities were not of a devotional or religious nature.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you learned how to spell before setting the stage?
================================================

Yes, the poster to whom you referred made an error in spelling. Perhaps, however, it would be helpful for you to put a period at the end of your sentence rather than improperly finishing it with a question mark.

We are all guilty of spelling and grammatical errors. We don't usually point them out just to stick it to a fellow FReeper.

Thanks for the info ---

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

Phyllis Hamilton - Part III

Apparently, there is not enough time in the day to catalog all of the morally bankrupt rulings issued by Judge Phyllis Hamilton. No wonder Clinton nominated her - there's absolutely no liberal cause she doesn't love.

In recent posts, USANow has documented her preference to remove any and all obstacles to a woman's right to murder her unborn. The cruelty and horror of Partial Birth Abortions are minor by-products of a woman's right to make whatever "medical decisions" she wants. In addition, Hamilton has issued a ruling upholding a public school district's right to force students to practice Islam in school for 3 weeks.

Are there any limits to her lack of moral character? Does she ever issue any judgement that supports common, everyday, American values? Apparently not. Earlier this month, two gay men sought to post their provile on www.adoption.com as potential adoptive "parents". Adoption.com, as you would expect, refused to post the profiles of the two homosexuals. So the homos sued and had the good fortune that their case landed in the court of Phyllis Hamilton. Naturally, Hamilton ruled in favor of the gay men, stating that adoption.com was discriminating based on sexual orientation.

It seems that an organization would be able to create a valuable service like adoption.com in such a manner that supported traditional, accepted, normal family values. Obviously, Hamilton doesn't see it that way. I think all would agree that homosexuals should not be discriminated against with respect to employment, college admissions, etc. However, is should also be crystal clear to anyone with a brain that two gay men cannot be classified as "prospective adoptive parents".

PS - if you disagree with USANow, ask yourself this question. How would you like to find yourself, at the age of 12, as the adopted child of two gay guys? Wouldn't you be pissed that some judge forced an adoption agency to allow a gay couple to adopt you? Cub Scouts would be a real hoot on the father-son campouts. Your wedding day would be just grand as two "Dads" walk you down the aisle. A district judge has absolutely no business enforcing her moral perversions on a defenseless child up for adoption.

posted by John @ 3:37 PM Comment (0)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.