Calif. Judges Have to Disclose Boy Scout Links

ABCNews.go.com ^ | June 19, 2003

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

California judges may have to disqualify themselves from certain cases if they are involved with the Boy Scouts of America, according to new rules approved by the state's Supreme Court.

Lynn Holton, a spokeswoman for the state Supreme Court, said on Thursday that several California judges are leaders or members of the Boy Scouts, a group that has come under legal fire from gay groups because it bars "avowed homosexuals" from membership.

According to the new rules approved on Wednesday for state judges, "A judge should disclose to the parties his or her membership in an organization, in any proceeding in which the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider this information relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge concludes there is no actual basis for disqualification."

The Supreme Court did not, however, limit judges from being associated with the youth group, which has about 3.3 million youth members and 1.2 million adult leaders. More than 110 million Americans have joined the Boy Scouts since the organization was founded in 1910.

"We're pleased that the Supreme Court rejected a proposal to bar judges from membership in the Boy Scouts," said Gregg Shields, national spokesman for the BSA based in Irving, Texas. "The proposal which they declined to adopt would have unconstitutionally interfered with First Amendment association rights."

The Scouts' approach to homosexuality has long fueled controversy. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Boy Scouts had the right to exclude homosexuals.

[Alberta's Child]

This ruling can't possibly stand for very long. Imagine if California judges were required to disclose their membership in groups like the ACLU, NAACP, etc.

[petitfour]

So, should judges who are not associated with the boy scouts have to recuse themselves of cases involving the boy scouts? should homosexual judges recuse themselves from cases involving homosexuality?

[Seeking the truth]

Should homosexual judges also make such disclosures?

Should liberal judges also make such disclosures?

Should Democrat judges also make such disclosures?

[Paleo Conservative]

Imagine if California judges were required to disclose their membership in groups like the ACLU, NAACP, etc.

NAMBLA, Communist Party, Al Qaeda?

[thegreatbeast]

California is forever lost. I'm exhausted from reading of its decrepitude.

[afraidfortherepublic]

How about their memberships in the Commonwealth Club? The Black Panthers? Did anyone mention NARAL? Planned Parenthood? The PTA?

[Walkingfeather]

FINE...as long as EVERY judge that has contributed or been to a support funtion or dinner of the ACLU also recuse themselves. Then they will need a change of venue since there will be no more un bias judges.

[Myrddin]

The obvious next step is for the homosexuals to shop for a judge that is not associated with the Boy Scouts to provide them a favorable ruling to put homosexuals into the Boy Scout organization.

[ErnBatavia]

NAMBLA, Communist Party, Al Qaeda?

You left off American Bar Association...

[AmishDude]

Are you now or have you ever been . . . ?

[Clint N. Suhks]

The Kalifornia thought poilce strikes again.

[AAABEST]

Gene, you're making sense again. I thought you were going to try to get a handle on that?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Can’t be impartial if you pledge an Oath to God and Country.

[RonF]

I think it's more that they don't think you can be impartial if your definition of "morally straight" doesn't include homosexuality.

[q_an_a]

Does this mean that gay judges will have to disclose their memberships to SFO bath houses? Will people have to disclose what church they belong to or what car clubs they attend? This is a typical Calif law full of liberal crap.

They think they created the shorelines and the mountains and that they are the creaters of all that is good. Thus the "people" should pay for the right to enjoy their ideas and the lasnscape that goes with it. Turn out the lights

[Seeking the truth]

I know, I know. A momentary lapse into logic & sanity...I'm sorry (but I'll propably do it again!)

[Husker24]

If I read that right, it didnt specifically mention the Boy Scouts, Just membership in ANY organisation that might conflict with any particular trial. So I believe that if there was a trial involving an environmental issue and the judge happened to be a member of the Sierra Club then this would also apply.

[vikingcelt]

"California is forever lost. I'm exhausted from reading of its decrepitude." Me too. I moved away from there last October. As a native born Californian it just became entirely too painful to watch the demise of my state. I'm actually sitting in a room in a town in California right now because I came down here to see my daughter and granddaughter and to take them on a cruise to Alaska. I sure won't be sorry to leave again though. We found ourselves a little bit of paradise up in Oregon.

[Myrddin]

If judges were actually honest and recused themselves anytime there was a possible conflict of interest, this ruling might have some value. I have little faith that this will happen. It would be fun to catch a judge in a conflict of interest in an environmental, anti-gun or anti-Boy Scouts case. We'll see whether this is "lip service" or has some teeth.