• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

should this judge resign his club membership?

Should this judge resign his club membership?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 83.3%

  • No

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • 4:20

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12
Guy Incognito said:
Are you serious? I'm advocating the libertarian position here, and you're advocating what is basically a racist-authoritarian position. AGAIN.

Let's review real quick:

1. Being a judge is not a right, it is a privilege. This is the libertarian view.

2. Judges should be impartial and obey ethical guidelines. This is the libertarian view.

3. The judicial code of ethics requires judges relinquish any memberships in discriminatory organization in order to undertake the privilege of being a judge. Nothing wrong with that from the libertarian view.

Who the real libertarian is in this situation is plain as day. Me.
Click to expand...

lets review correctly...

The Judicial review board examined the case and decided that not only did he not violate the Judicial Code of Ethics but had been advocating for years for more diverse membership. Ah...but thats not good enough...in the zeal to promote your own personal bias you completely overlook the facts and insist he be disbarred...cuz...dangit...you dont like it.


Joke Incognito....

Edit: Joke Cognito...nothing covert there...
 
Last edited:
See, the judiciary code of conduct says that judges can't be members of organizations that discriminate based on race or gender. Since the Belle Meade club discriminates based on race and gender, it's okay.

In all seriousness though, he should leave the club. It seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of the code of conduct to me.
 
molten_dragon said:
See, the judiciary code of conduct says that judges can't be members of organizations that discriminate based on race or gender. Since the Belle Meade club discriminates based on race and gender, it's okay.

In all seriousness though, he should leave the club. It seems like a pretty clear-cut violation of the code of conduct to me.
Click to expand...

Except that a panel of judges as per THE LAW which everyone wants to cite as if they know it reviewed the case and decided he was not violating the law or code of conduct, and was not required to vacate his membership or his judicial position.
 
VanceMack said:
Oh...hey...even though the Association for Women in Math allows the token male, none of their board members or scholarship recipients are men. Curious. I dont know...Id have to say that since their mission is to promote women in the profession and they exist solely to
[FONT=arial, sans-serif] "encourage women and girls to study and to have active careers in the mathematical sciences, and to promote equal opportunity and the equal treatment of women and girls in the mathematical sciences" I'd say their mission was pretty gender biased...and...thats not right...[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Anyone can advocate for any cause they would like. It's not "anti-man" to advocate that women be treated equally and participate equally in a field such as math or business.

That's the problem that you have.

Women don't get paid equally to met for equal work. If I advocate for equal pay for equal work, in your mind then, I'm against men. You can't see it as better for both men and women, even though the advocacy is for women. Indeed, the National Organization for Women supported the 2009 Parental Leave Act - advocating for both fathers and mothers to have time off when a new child arrives (either through birth or adoption).

Sounds pretty equal to me.
 
molten_dragon said:
See, the judiciary code of conduct says that judges can't be members of organizations that discriminate based on race or gender. Since the Belle Meade club discriminates based on race and gender, it's okay.
Click to expand...

:rofl You must be a lawyer!
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Anyone can advocate for any cause they would like. It's not "anti-man" to advocate that women be treated equally and participate equally in a field such as math or business.

That's the problem that you have.

Women don't get paid equally to met for equal work. If I advocate for equal pay for equal work, in your mind then, I'm against men. You can't see it as better for both men and women, even though the advocacy is for women. Indeed, the National Organization for Women supported the 2009 Parental Leave Act - advocating for both fathers and mothers to have time off when a new child arrives (either through birth or adoption).

Sounds pretty equal to me.
Click to expand...

I dont have a problem with it. you miss the point. I dont care if the judge belongs to this club. If there is an indication he has been improper by all means....that should be brought forward. Personally...I dont give a **** who he golfs with. But if you are going to cite gender and race in your restrictions then dont you have to cite it across the board and not just white and male?

In any game...what really matters is scoreboard. The law was applied and by a vote of 10-8, his actions are deemed to be not inappropriate. You may feel free to align yourself with the 8 of course...that still makes you wrong.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Except that a panel of judges as per THE LAW which everyone wants to cite as if they know it reviewed the case and decided he was not violating the law or code of conduct, and was not required to vacate his membership or his judicial position.
Click to expand...

I think they made the wrong decision then. That is, of course, assuming that the information given in the article on what the judiciary code of conduct mandates was accurate.
 
molten_dragon said:
I think they made the wrong decision then. That is, of course, assuming that the information given in the article on what the judiciary code of conduct mandates was accurate.
Click to expand...

nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion. Thats what makes the country great.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont have a problem with it. you miss the point. I dont care if the judge belongs to this club. If there is an indication he has been improper by all means....that should be brought forward. Personally...I dont give a **** who he golfs with. But if you are going to cite gender and race in your restrictions then dont you have to cite it across the board and not just white and male?

In any game...what really matters is scoreboard. The law was applied and by a vote of 10-8, his actions are deemed to be not inappropriate. You may feel free to align yourself with the 8 of course...that still makes you wrong.
Click to expand...

Just because I said I thought he should resign, doesn't mean that I think that should be law.

It just doesn't look good. It gives off a bad appearance, and when one is supposed to be the neutral arbiter of justice, then one should worry about appearances of conflict of interest.

My gig is much less vital than this, but I still have several circumstances where I have to excuse myself for circumstances because a Jury might be discussing a film by someone I know personally. If I'm in there, it would appear that I'm advocating when I should be neutral. I do that for something as simple as a film competition. Granted, we give out more than $50,000 but it's still not the same as law and justice.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Just because I said I thought he should resign, doesn't mean that I think that should be law.

It just doesn't look good. It gives off a bad appearance, and when one is supposed to be the neutral arbiter of justice, then one should worry about appearances of conflict of interest.

My gig is much less vital than this, but I still have several circumstances where I have to excuse myself for circumstances because a Jury might be discussing a film by someone I know personally. If I'm in there, it would appear that I'm advocating when I should be neutral. I do that for something as simple as a film competition. Granted, we give out more than $50,000 but it's still not the same as law and justice.
Click to expand...

I dont know...If I recall from the article, dood has been a judge and member for long enough that he is about to retire and it doesnt seem to have been an issue. He seems to be a diversity advocate within the club. I simply dont see the big deal, except that there was race involved and thats always a good opportunity to break out the race rhetoric.

I get the requirment for proriety sake. In my job its critical that I not get connected with the Payton Place bull**** that goes on. However it seems like the guy there hasnt been any complaints about his judicial practice from 1978 until someone wrote an article on May 17 2011. Still struggling to see the relevant 'big deal'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom