Calif. Judges Have to Disclose Boy Scout Links

ABCNews.go.com ^ | June 19, 2003

[Coleus]

It's sick out there and getting sicker.

They boy scouts need to start fighting back and defend themselves.

[Scenic Sounds]

The rule is only a rule of disclosure. It is not a rule of disqualification.

And it's not limited to the Boy Scouts:

"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."

[oldtimer]

We quit giving to the United Way, and only give to the Boy Scouts now.

[Coleus]

That's what I do now too. I no longer have any use for the United Way.

[arasina]

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...

Disclose to whom? Also, that "which the judge believes" clause is nebulous. A dirty judge would not believe his or her membership in the ACLU (or whatever organization) would require disclosure.

It simply amazes me what California "lawmakers" will do to twist the world around to their reality.

[arasina]

They boy scouts need to start fighting back and defend themselves.

And they should be given a badge when they do!

[pbear8]

Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Boy Scouts? Have you ever given money or time to this organization?

Leftist McCarthyism.

[THUNDER ROAD]

Here's some info if you want to give 'em
a good Freepin'

Judicial Council of California and California Supreme Court
Lynn Holton
Public Information Officer
Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660
415-865-7740
Publications hotline: 415-865-7738
Fax: 415-865-4334
lynn.holton@jud.ca.gov

.....THUNDER.....

[RonF]

The BSA has been fighting back. There's Dale, which they took to the Supreme Court and won. There's been their dealings with the Cradle of Liberty Council; they've stared them down and won when they tried to start allowing out gays as leaders. This kind of thing is a little different. The BSA itself doesn't seem to have any standing to challenge the California Supremes. But I have to question how extensible this is. If a judge is a Baptist, will he have to disclose that in a case where homosexual rights comes up? I think that as this gains notice, a lot of people are going to start asking a lot of questions.

[Coleus]

This kind of thing is a little different. >>>>

Yes, it is but National BSA can, at the very least, issue a statement.

I guess the, the judiciary, will be opening up Pandora's box. My council joined the bandwagon and submitted an non-dircriminatory policy, i.e. allow homosexuals. I hope natioal sees this and does not accept it.

[F16Fighter]

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

And what of the SC witch, Ruth Bader-Ginshole's major affiliation with the aforementioned ACLU?

[Clint N. Suhks]

My council joined the bandwagon and submitted a non-discriminatory policy, i.e. allow homosexuals.

Hope you bring that to the attention of national, it would seem the “bandwagon” may soon become an organized grass roots assault on the policy. Conspiracy theory aside, activism like this is likely to have connections with the homosexual activist machine. I can see the day when this all comes to a head and divides the BSA, we can all thank the APA for its contribution to being political in 1973 rather than using objective science to keep this behavior a pathology. What was thought to be insignificant changes to society have had exponential consequences on everyone.