• 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
VanceMack said:
Right...so lets eliminate anyone from public service if they have any specific bias or affiliations with any group that others might disagree with or find conflicting to their OWn personal biases instead of examining if there is ACTUAL bias involved. Better yet...we can snatch babies at birth...send them off to some private island and raise them to be gender and race neutral.
Click to expand...


The rule is a federal judge can not be a member of a club that discriminates on the basis of race or gender. As far as I know it does not say anything about religion. And we do happen to have freedom of religion in this country.
 
VanceMack said:
Got it...your bias doesnt match their bias. So...you got nothin...I hear ya...
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't got it, because I'm saying that your New World Order garbage doesn't belong in a serious discussion.
 
winston53660 said:
The rule is a federal judge can not be a member of a club that discriminates on the basis of race or gender. As far as I know it does not say anything about religion. And we do happen to have freedom of religion in this country.
Click to expand...

you also might wish to consult the 10 panelled judges that disagree with you. Better yet...schedule a meeting so that you can all attend.
 
VanceMack said:
Hokey schmoke...who knew there were so many Womens Organizations out there. And minority specific organizations. Well...that settles it. Shut em all down....
Click to expand...

In the vast majority of cases, one need not be a woman nor a minority to join such groups. There is not racial requirement to be a member of the NAACP, for example. The National Organization for Women has a distinct non-discrimination policy on their membership page.

One need not be a women to advocate for women's rights and I don't know of an advocacy group who suggests that only women may join.

If you find them, I will join you in calling them out.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I'm saying that your New World Order garbage doesn't belong in a serious discussion.
Click to expand...

In a discussion on gender and race bias? Really? Please...dont go and start embarassing yourself yet again.
 
VanceMack said:
you also might wish to consult the 10 panelled judges that disagree with you.
Click to expand...

They disagree with me so what :shrug:

And I agree with the dissenting judges.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
In the vast majority of cases, one need not be a woman nor a minority to join such groups. There is not racial requirement to be a member of the NAACP, for example. The National Organization for Women has a distinct non-discrimination policy on their membership page.

One need not be a women to advocate for women's rights and I don't know of an advocacy group who suggests that only women may join.

If you find them, I will join you in calling them out.
Click to expand...

Well...I already mentione the CBC...how about the Association of Womens Professionals to start.

Before this goes too far...you may get the point...I dont CARE if they belong to these groups as long as it doesnt affect their job.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
In the vast majority of cases, one need not be a woman nor a minority to join such groups. There is not racial requirement to be a member of the NAACP, for example. The National Organization for Women has a distinct non-discrimination policy on their membership page.

One need not be a women to advocate for women's rights and I don't know of an advocacy group who suggests that only women may join.

If you find them, I will join you in calling them out.
Click to expand...

Great point, FFG. The NAACP and NOW are wonderful organizations that do not practice membership discrimination in any way. That anyone would compare these institutions to a racist country club is mindboggling.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Great point, FFG. The NAACP and NOW are wonderful organizations that do not practice membership discrimination in any way. That anyone would compare these institutions to a racist country club is mindboggling.
Click to expand...

The NAACP was established by whites. Now...how about the CBC? The NAWBO? The AWBA?

And Im shocked at you...you cant be a REAL Libertarian with such beliefs...
 
Guy Incognito said:
And what would you call a violation of judicial ethical code, exactly?
Click to expand...

The panel that reviewed the case disagreed with you that it does. Join the others in your meeting with them so they can explain it to you.
 
VanceMack said:
So...by a vote of 10-8...you lose.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize it was a competition.

Ya know I remember when The Dallas Cowboys were great. Tom Landry and Roger Staubach were at the top of there game. Then The Cowboys went downhill way downhill. Only to come back again and be at the top of their game. Things change ya know.
 
VanceMack said:
So...we are moving for congress to disband the Congressional Black Caucus pretty quick too I'm guessing...
Click to expand...

Federal judges are supposed to be objective and impartial, and therefore these sort of behavior standards apply to them because they convey the impression that a judge might favor certain groups over others. Congresspeople, on the other hand, are elected by the voters for their subjective opinions on issues. If a congressperson's membership in the Congressional Black Caucus is of concern to his/her constituents, they are free to vote him/her out of office.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
The NAACP was established by whites. Now...how about the CBC? The NAWBO? The AWBA?

And Im shocked at you...you cant be a REAL Libertarian with such beliefs...
Click to expand...

A REAL libertarian opposes government endorsed racism where ever it may occur. Being a judge is a privilege, not a right. Nobody is saying he can't join a racist country club, just that he can't do it while sitting on the federal bench.

If you can't understand that, then it is you who is the false libertarian.
 
VanceMack said:
The panel that reviewed the case disagreed with you that it does. Join the others in your meeting with them so they can explain it to you.
Click to expand...

That's ok, they'll definitely get overturned on appeal.
 
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]
 
Guy Incognito said:
Great point, FFG. The NAACP and NOW are wonderful organizations that do not practice membership discrimination in any way. That anyone would compare these institutions to a racist country club is mindboggling.
Click to expand...

The National Organization for Women's 1966 Statement of Purpose
NOTICE: This is a historic document, which was adopted at NOW's first National Conference in Washington, D.C. on October 29, 1966. The words are those of the 1960s, and do not reflect current language or NOW's current priorities.

We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

The National Organization for Women's 1966 Statement of Purpose
 
Guy Incognito said:
A REAL libertarian opposes government endorsed racism where ever it may occur. Being a judge is a privilege, not a right. Nobody is saying he can't join a racist country club, just that he can't do it while sitting on the federal bench.

If you can't understand that, then it is you who is the false libertarian.
Click to expand...


:lamo Theres that GI situational Libertarian we were talking about the other day...who believes in individual rights and freedoms when it is conveeeeenient to their own personal beliefs and bias.
 
liblady said:
The National Organization for Women's 1966 Statement of Purpose
NOTICE: This is a historic document, which was adopted at NOW's first National Conference in Washington, D.C. on October 29, 1966. The words are those of the 1960s, and do not reflect current language or NOW's current priorities.

We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

The National Organization for Women's 1966 Statement of Purpose
Click to expand...

I didnt bring up either NOW or NAACP...but since others did...how many mens rights issues do you see them fighting for? As long as men are willing to join and advocate for womens issues...well...sure...they are welcome.

Hearken back to the Shirley Sherrod situation from July of last year...how many non blacks did you see at that event?

just sayin...tokenism isnt exactly a positive means of judging an organization. Apparently the country club in question has it's 'token' and not too many blacks have applied for membership.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
:lamo Theres that GI situational Libertarian we were talking about the other day...who believes in individual rights and freedoms when it is conveeeeenient to their own personal beliefs and bias.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom