[wouldntbprudent]

Here's a judge who rejects the legislator's conclusions that, for reasons the LEGISLATOR decides to accept, certain acts should be illegal.

IOW, his whole approach is "I disagree with the law" so I don't have to uphold it. I can be a super legislator. I can disregard the judgement of the people's elective representatives since I know better.

This is what the libs want: judges who simply feel they do not have to follow the law if they don't want to.

[MineralMan]

"Here's a judge who rejects the legislator's conclusions that, for reasons the LEGISLATOR decides to accept, certain acts should be illegal.
"

Actually, that's not what he did at all. The law is written poorly, in that it does not specify which acts must be reported. Two district attorneys had different ideas, with one of them believing that even teenagers fondling each other should be included under this law.

The problem is that the legislature did not write a proper law. Laws involving criminal liability must be specific in describing whatever acts they consider criminal. This law did not do that.

If a D.A. can prosecute a couple of teenagers who are groping each other a little in the back seat of their car, it is a bad law, since that's a pretty universal practice...one which no law will ever be able to prevent.

[Oztrich Boy]

Here's a judge who rejects the legislator's conclusions

It's not the judge who is doing the rejecting

At issue in the Kansas case is what the Legislature meant when it wrote the statute to say that doctors and others must have a "suspicion of injury" caused by abuse and neglect to trigger mandatory reporting.

The Attorney General then declared its all harmful, and wants any distincition wrttten in law to be ignored and instead wants his personal opinion enforced as law.

Then Sedgwick County District Attorney agrres with the arbitary principle, but has a different personal opinion on what is covered.

Rule by the personal whim of the State Offical, instead of Rule of Law

[Sandy]

Here's a judge who rejects the legislator's conclusions that, for reasons the LEGISLATOR decides to accept, certain acts should be illegal.

Oh please. It's not the legislature's conclusions; it's the attorney general's conclusion.

The law requires reporting when a person "has reason to suspect that a child has been injured as a result of...sexual abuse".

The attorney general recently decided that "any pregnant female under the age of 16 has been injured as a result of sexual abuse" and therefore needs to be reported under the statute.

His opinion is ridiculous and deserves to be rejected.