Catholic Judges Unwanted On Case

The Plain Dealer ^ | August 5, 2003 | James F. McCarthy

[mabelkitty]

Lawyers pursuing a civil racketeering lawsuit against the Cleveland Catholic Diocese say Catholic judges are naturally biased in favor of their church and should be barred from hearing the case.

Jay Milano, a Rocky River lawyer representing six people who say they were sexually abused by priests or church employees, asked the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday to disqualify Judge Nancy McDonnell and any other Catholic judge from presiding over the lawsuit.

For good measure, Milano also asked that a non-Catholic justice of the Supreme Court decide his request.

Neither motion will be easily met. More than three-quarters of the 34 judges in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court's general division are Catholic. And the majority of the seven Supreme Court justices are Catholic.

Milano argues that, from their first day in the classroom, Catholic schoolchildren are taught any attack on the church is the same as an attack against God.

"We believe it is too much to ask of any judge to rule against their God, their diocese, their church and their bishops," Milano said after filing court papers in Columbus.

Milano has accused the diocese of engaging in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse to protect its assets.

Attorney Robert Ducatman, who leads the Cleveland Diocese's defense against sex-abuse lawsuits, said other plaintiffs' lawyers have filed similar motions without success.

"There is nothing in the record of any of these cases which establishes that any judge who happens to be a member of the Catholic faith cannot be completely fair and impartial in matters brought before them," he said.

Legal experts on the subject concur, predicting certain doom for the faith-based maneuver.

Melvyn Durchslag, a professor of constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University's College of Law, said the same brand of religious stereotyping plagued John F. Kennedy's election campaign in 1960. Many suspected a Catholic president's first allegiance would be to the pope.

"I'm not a Catholic, but I'm still offended" by Milano's motion, Durchslag said.

His colleague at Case's law school, Jonathan Entin, said he knows of no precedent in U.S. legal history in which a judge maintaining his or her objectivity was disqualified on the basis of religion, race or ethnicity.

[mabelkitty]

This is exactly what Kennedy, Clinton, and Schumer were going for.

However, can a rapist now declare he doesn't want a woman judge?

The legacy of the fillibuster of Christians in the Senate....

[mabelkitty]

FYI...pass it on.

[boxerblues]

we need an ohio ping over here

[jmaroneps37]

Well now mr. rat media,which is it? Are Catholic judges no good because they WON'T follow the law as chuckie says or; because the WILL follow the law, which is what the the Cleveland double dealer probably fears?

[Sir Charles]

The time will come when these cases will be decided by computer, devoid of bias of any kind. It would probably take years for all to agree on whether or not any bias remains....and then there are always the hackers or crackers to contend with. Justice never was and never will be blind, nor should it be because the world is not blind, just needs a better optometrist.

[MainFrame65]

Clearly, any Jewish judge MUST have an anti-Catholic bias. Just think of the history of these two groups. And as for Protestants, or Muslims, these breakaway schismatics cannot possibly be expected to render fair judgement when a Catholic is on trial. But what about atheists? Could they...? My head hurts.

So it seems to me that what is really put on trial by this syupidity is the judicial system itself. Either it can or cannot render fair judgement, in this OR ANY OTHER case. And the idiots proposing these theories need to be properly chastised by their peers.

[You Dirty Rats]

Lawyers make stupid cases and say stupid things all the time.

Unless, by some miracle, SCOOH agrees with him, this is not newsworthy. It's just a nut lawyer.

I also think this is not the best move for any lawyer. It won't make him very popular among the judges.

[mabelkitty]

Wrong.

He feels empowered due to the fact that Schumer and Hillary are succeeding in creating a litmus tests for all judiciary.

[You Dirty Rats]

I don't care what some idiot lawyer feels. He'll get slapped down by the SCOOH, and his 15 minutes will be over.

If the courts uphold him, then there is a story. Given the composition of the Court, there is a better chance I'll be appointed to SCOTUS.

[mabelkitty]

You are missing the point entirely.
It's not whether he can get away with it or not - it's the fact that he is going to try and violate the Constitution. This would fly in California.

That is the point.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

Does that mean they will be insisting there will be no homosexuals also?