Replies

"This is a fundamental part of being a judicial officer . . . avoiding even the appearance of partiality at all times so that every litigant who appears in front of you is treated fairly and equally," said Angela Bradstreet, president of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

This is a transparent argument..

So, judges must live in a cardboard box packed with cotton, lest they ever accidentally come in contact with someone who might be before them in the court? They can't eat at local restrauants? They can't sponsor little league? They can't invest? They can't do business with the local bank or insurance agency? They can't buy a car from a local dealer? They can't interact with anyone, anywhere, ever?

B/S There is a mechanism in place for Judges to recuse themselves, and if they refuse and they are prejudiced in any way they place both themselves and their ruling in jeapordy.

This is a sham decision intended to slap the face of the BSA because they refuse to let little kids be fondled in the woods by a queer scoutmaster. It's also an implicit insult to the intelligence of the reader.

(You know, I think the gays do protest too much.. They loudly proclaim to be homosexuals but not pedophiles (!) but their actions continue to say something completely different.

This is a sham decision intended to slap the face of the BSA because they refuse to let little kids be fondled in the woods by a queer scoutmaster. It's also an implicit insult to the intelligence of the reader.

Exactly.

I'm afraid you are right. This is an unconstitutional imposition on the judges who might want to be involved with Scouts.

This case has done one thing - it has finally let me see the extent of the gay's prejudice. They have made me prejudiced. I will not tolerate their presence, trade, emply, or knowlingly communicate with them.

That is a lot to say from a laissez fiare free trader and generally liberal (in the old sense - free to do what you wanted as long as you didn't harm others) person.

They win. Now I'm biased. I hate their agenda, and by extension, hate them. I do not want them near my boys - they do not have the right to be near my boys.

Bring it on flamers - tell me why you should have access to children of what to you are the opposite sex. I've had enough of it.