Lawmaker wants to impeach 'activist' judge

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by jimnyc, Mar 21, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Responding to "judicial activism," a Colorado lawmaker wants to impeach a judge who ordered a former lesbian in a child custody case not to teach her daughter homosexual behavior is wrong.

    Republican state Rep. Greg Brophy introduced a resolution yesterday to begin impeachment proceedings against Denver District Judge John Coughlin.

    As WorldNetDaily reported, Cheryl Clark, a convert to Christianity, was ordered by Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."

    The directive arose from a decision to award joint parenting responsibilities for her daughter to a practicing homosexual.

    Clark and Elsey McLeod were in a lesbian relationship that broke up after Clark became a Christian and concluded homosexual behavior was wrong.

    The Denver court gave McLeod joint custody of Clark's adopted daughter, Emma, even though McLeod had no legal relationship to the girl.

    Brophy said Coughlin's ruling completely disregards the state and federal constitutions and could set a precedent allowing people with no legal relationship to a child to fight for custody.

    Coughlin's clerk said the judge had no comment, according to the Associated Press.

    Although the ruling is under appeal, Brophy insists the case requires immediate action.

    "If you look at the First Amendment of the Constitution, how can you not say this is a case where a judge has stolen the religious liberty of someone?" he said, according to the AP.

    Brophy says his resolution has the support of half of the state House's Republican leadership, but is opposed by top GOP leaders, Senate President John Andrews and Gov. Bill Owens. He also has not won the endorsement of House Speaker Lola Spradley.

    "Impeachment is a last resort for cases of gross wrongdoing or clear unfitness of character," Andrews said, according to the AP. "It should not be used to settle policy differences, even something as highly charged as this case."

    The governor acknowledged concern about judicial activism, but called Brophy's resolution "inappropriate, excessive and uncalled for."

    The Christian Coalition of Colorado, however, is working to gain support for the measure through its members and churches.

    The group's president, Chuck Gosnell, said Coughlin "has clearly shown that the tyranny of the black robe must be stopped here in Colorado."

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37670
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,568
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,204
    Out of curiousity. If gross abuse of the bench is not grounds for impeachment, what is?
     
  3. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Rulings that completely contravene laws seem to be gross negligence; thus, impeachable. I think the bar association should also boot the idiot.
     
  4. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    The issue here is that this child was in the custody of these women when they were together, they broke up and the family court chose to place her with one of the women. The issue is that if the other woman teaches the child that homosexuality is wrong it will damage her relationship with the other parent and make it impossible for the other parent to raise the child. That's likely the reason the judge made this order, to protect the rights of BOTH parents to raise this child. This is why judges will frequently chastize divorced parents who criticize each other in front of their children. This ruling wasn't about homosexuality, it was about protecting the rights of both parents who have joint custody.

    If you all would look past the end of your nose you'd realize this.

    I would call this lawmaker's actions both a violation of the separation of powers and of the power of impeachment.

    acludem
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    And what does how a parent decides to raise their child have to do with the law? What law was broken? Can you cite the code for us please.

    The judge is a prick that based his decisions on emotion rather than the laws he is supposed to base them on. This type of activism needs to be stopped.
     
  6. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Um, when you actually read the words of the First Amendment you won't see a phrase that says separation of church and state. However, if Christian children aren't allowed to be told in school that their beliefs of the creation of the world are valid due to it supposedly being there, than I can sure as hell tell you that no judge can tell a woman not to practice her religion because of her gay ex lover's feelings.
     
  7. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Once again, this is a family court issue. Both parents have joint custody, one is gay, the other says she isn't. This means both parents have a say in how this child is raised. It would cause this child MASSIVE confusion if one parent is telling her that the other parent is a bad person because she's gay. The judge in this case probably told the born-again Christian not criticize her former partner in front of the girl or to teach her that her former partner is bad because she's gay. This is NOT a first amendment issue. And if it is, what about the rights of the other parent? Doesn't she, as a joint-custodial parent have the right to teach her views to the child? According to you, and this lawmaker, she doesn't. If it had been the other way, and the judge had told her not to tell the child that being gay was okay none of you or this lawmaker would have your panties in a bunch.

    acludem
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Bottom line, the judge has no right telling this parent that they cannot teach them their personal beliefs. There is no law you can cite to backup his decision. It might sound like a reasonable resolution to you, but it's simply not one that a judge should be enforcing.
     
  9. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Freedom of religion and the laws about government not being able to interfere with someone's practice of it, is incontrovertible. It's all ascending. Just because some gay person's feelings would be hurt by someone else's practice of their own religion is not a reason to cast out the first amendment.

    Forgetting that I question the custody order's validity and that there is no legal relationship between the gay ex-lover and the child. Give me a break. No judge in the land has the right to tell someone how and when to inculcate their child into their religion. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    There is a difference between tolerance for others and telling a legal parent what that parent can and cannot practice as a religion. There's no excuse for it.

    "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."

    that appears to be a quote from the judge's order. There's not a single law in the land upon which the judge could base that order.
     
  10. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    I don't much mind activist judges. It just so happens we conservatives don't have any.
     

Share This Page