Posted on 02/24/2012 10:57:38 AM PST by massmike
In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.
Philip R. Carrizosa of the executive office of communications at the Judicial Council of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts, confirmed the authenticity of Price’s email regarding gender identification and sexual orientation to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The original bill, which simply provided for 50 new judgeships, was amended in the Assembly in August 2006, to address concerns that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not appointing enough women and minorities to the bench. In 2011, Senator Ellen Corbett expanded the reporting requirement to include gender identification and sexual orientation.
...as a result of Corbett’s 2011 California bill, the office has “expanded the collection and release of aggregate demographic data to include gender identification and sexual orientation.” Therefore, Price explains, judges and justices must reveal their “sexual orientation,” in addition “to their race/ethnicity [and] gender identification.”
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
But hey, if you want to deny a 2nd-Amendment-supporting judge the ability to sit on the bench simply because he does not believe that each and every American has the right to store boxes of grenades, then you just go right ahead with that train wreck of thought.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And you just go right ahead and list all the 2nd-Amendment-supporting judges you know who are also pro-gay rights supporting judges.
~crickets~
This ain’t hard Ghost. My “acceptability” test for judges begins with a simple letter after their name. Is it a L or an R?
We have four candidates who will fix our economic mess—we only have one who will fix the rest.
Will be of great help to the Mohammedans once California implements Sharia Law. Do these libs ever really how dumb their policies are?
I was looking for that “semi-satire” tag often posted here from that website of the same name. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find it.
What does L/R mean?
Libertarian or Republican?
Not sure what you’re saying, only Libertarians, only Republicans, or either, just no Democrats.
lolol
I guess I should explain. R we know means Republican.
L means Liberal or Libertarian. Either one is the same thing as far as I’m concerned. Or I guess I should have used..
D for Democrat.
Ah, I see.
So you are saying judges should only be libertarian or Republicans, but no Democrats? Or you are saying you only want conservative judges and no liberals?
Wait until they start requiring federal contractors to provide the same sort of “aggregate” data. They already have to supply the data on ethnicity, gender, and race. Supplying the data is supposedly voluntary, but I’ll bet if you don’t, your resume gets sent to the black hole. If you check non-latino white male, you’re chances of getting the job probably shrink, so that they can make their hiring profile match their applicant profile.
But don't you wish you had to make it up?
How can someone who is anti-second amendment, possibly rule correctly on cases involving it. If by their writings, and prior decisions they have indicated that they don’t believe the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, why would they rule that way in court?
Someone can be expected to rule against their own personal interests, but not their own beliefs and understandings of the Constitution.
In the case under discussion, I can envision someone who is homosexual ruling that the people have the right and the power to outlaw gay marriage. But i wouldn’t want to count on it in general.
On 2nd amendment issues liberals/democrats are very different than libertarians. Libertarians are very pro individual arms rights. Most liberals, and many Rockefeller Republicans, are very anti arms rights.
Oh, man, Gato, don’t I...I don’t see it coming here to Texas anytime soon, though.
As I said, their approval can be based upon their publications. If they have taken a stand against the Constitution, that should definitely be used in their approval/disapproval. If they’ve written papers stating that they believe certain aspects of the Constitution are wrong or should be changed, to me, they are like homosexuals who want to be in the military. No doubt there are good soldiers that are homosexual but that no one ever knew they were, because they first-and-foremost wanted to be good soldiers, not homosexual soldiers. As soon as those soldiers or activist judges announce their hyphenations, it is clear evidence that descriptor is their first-and-foremost goal.
I wish Ginsberg could be forced to face an impeachment-type trial for her recent comments abroad about not selecting the US Constitution as a boilerplate because it doesn’t go far enough in terms of human rights. It clearly shows that she believes the bedrock that is to be the basis of her judgment is not as good as others. When you combine that with the trend of activist judges to use international law as a basis for their decisions, you have clear evidence of betraying their duties, which are specifically to weigh cases solely against the Constitution, not legislate from the bench using any means necessary.
I’ve heard the homosexual population is less than 4%. Still it is AMAZING how much power they have managed to command politically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.