The Judiciary needs an enema

This article caught my eye this morning.

I realize that judges are people too, but they’re people that are supposed to be thoughtful and considerate of consequences. This particular example of thoughtlesness-in-black-robes sat down, took the time to write a letter, address that letter, and send it. He didn’t just open his mouth in an unguarded moment. He had time to think about what he was writing, and he still sent it.

I understand that many people hold strong opinions about gays and lesbians, but this wimpy and implausible excuse won’t cut it. the man is a judge, and is supposed to be able to think in advance.

The Judiciary needs a high colonic.

Holy shit! What a moron!

I think december put it best.

The best part is, he wrote the letter to a newspaper!

Whenever this happens, I think back on the threads whooping it up for a popularly and democratically elected judiciary. When you have judges chosen by popular election, as opposed to nomination, appointment and retention election, you get judges who reflect the thinking of the lowest common denominator. The guy surely did something stupid but it is a hot button issue and probably guaranteed his election. If you think it’s not an election issue look at the under the table discussion of Janet Reno’s sex life in the Florida primary.

Of course, do you think he’s going to recuse himself from any case coming before him involving a gay man or a lesbian, since he apparently believes we’re institutionalizably insane?

Cripes, what a moron. I don’t know if the entire judiciary needs an enema, but this guy apparently does. But the question is: How do you administer one when his head is up his ass?

An enema is for flushing the shite out of your system. This guy’s a piece of shite, and needs to be flushed out of the judiciary. Once he’s out of office, I could care less if he needs a transparent belly-button to read the paper or not.

OMG.

The man should not be serving as a judge. Not because he has a low opinion of gay and lesbian people, or that he wrote that in a letter.

It’s this: A judge is supposed to be able to apply the law of the land to the case before him. He needs to be able to read it in the context in which it is set – the meaning of “tenancy” in an estate is something quite different from its meaning in a lease, for example. And he must be able to reason whether superior law applies, and in what way – statutes override regulations or local ordinances, for example, state constitutions override statutes, and the Federal constitution is the supreme law of the land.

It’s clear from his quotation of Romans 1:31-32 that he cannot even follow the rather complex assertions of St. Paul within his own religion, much less read it in the context of what Jesus had to say. This implies to me that he is totally incompetent as a judge where the case is any more complex than “Fred hit Joe unprovokedly in front of twenty witnesses, and Joe pressed charges.”

Aw, c’mon – that antiquated notion went out the window after the 2000 Presidential Elections.

You are still beating that dead horse? Wow.

Yeah, they’re always “applying the law of the land” when you agree with them – but never when you don’t. :rolleyes: