Lawmaker wants to impeach 'activist' judge

[jimnyc]

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

 

[Avatar4321]

Out of curiousity. If gross abuse of the bench is not grounds for impeachment, what is?

 

[Moi]

Rulings that completely contravene laws seem to be gross negligence; thus, impeachable. I think the bar association should also boot the idiot.

 

[acludem]

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

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
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 women teaches the child that homosexuality is wrong it will damage her relationship with the custodial parent and make it impossible for the custodial parent to raise the child. That's likely the reason the judge made this order, to protect the right of the custodial parent to be able to raise the child.

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

acludem

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.

 

[Moi]

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.

 

[acludem]

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

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
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

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.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by acludem
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

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.

 

[William Joyce]

I don't much mind activist judges. It just so happens we conservatives don't have any.

 

[acludem]

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that family courts are to act in the best interest of the child. In this case, the judge simply ruled that because the parents had joint custody, they were not to criticize each other, or each other's lifestyles in front of the child. Where's the crime in that? There is NO case in which one parent in an instance of joint custody is allowed to make such decisions as what religion a child will be brought up in without input from the other parent, this is true in any child custody situation. Cite me law that shows otherwise. This judge was well within his discretion to rule that Mom-A was not to teach her child that homosexuality is wrong in order to protect the relationship between the child and Mom-B when they have joint custody.

I find it interesting that none of the major GOP leadership has jumped on the bandwagon for this, that should tell you something Jimmy. It would be interesting to see if there's a story about this in a Colorado newspaper where a more full examination of the facts has happened. This story barely scratches the surface of what must be a complex legal process. Perhaps on that we can agree.

acludem

 

[Johnney]

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

this goes both ways (no pun intended). as in hetro couples that is. is it anymore wrong when a woman (mom) critisizes the man (dad)? or visversa(sp)

 

[acludem]

Uh, William do the names William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia mean anything? Does the case Bush v. Gore mean anything? William Rehnquist is a right-wing judicial activist as are Thomas and Scalia.

acludem

 

[acludem]

Exactly, Johnney. Thank you for stating it so well. Rulings that parents aren't to criticize each other in front of the kids are made everyday in child custody cases. It's only because this case involves a lesbian that people have their panties in a bunch.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
In this case, the judge simply ruled that because the parents had joint custody, they were not to criticize each other, or each other's lifestyles in front of the child. Where's the crime in that?

Exactly my question. There is absolutely nothing in the law that would make this ruling stand up. Parents get divorced usually because they grow apart into 2 different people. Of course they are going to have different beliefs! Should all the divorced couples now race to court to get a ruling on what their spouses can and can't teach their children? That's ridiculous.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by acludem
I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that family courts are to act in the best interest of the child. In this case, the judge simply ruled that because the parents had joint custody, they were not to criticize each other, or each other's lifestyles in front of the child. Where's the crime in that? There is NO case in which one parent in an instance of joint custody is allowed to make such decisions as what religion a child will be brought up in without input from the other parent, this is true in any child custody situation. Cite me law that shows otherwise. This judge was well within his discretion to rule that Mom-A was not to teach her child that homosexuality is wrong in order to protect the relationship between the child and Mom-B when they have joint custody.

If you think the Court has a childs best interests by forbidding religious values to be taught to them you have some serious issues.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Exactly, Johnney. Thank you for stating it so well. Rulings that parents aren't to criticize each other in front of the kids are made everyday in child custody cases. It's only because this case involves a lesbian that people have their panties in a bunch.

acludem

Bullshit. I would say the same damn thing if the judge made a ruling on a heterosexual couple on what they have the right to teach their child.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by acludem
I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that family courts are to act in the best interest of the child. In this case, the judge simply ruled that because the parents had joint custody, they were not to criticize each other, or each other's lifestyles in front of the child. Where's the crime in that? There is NO case in which one parent in an instance of joint custody is allowed to make such decisions as what religion a child will be brought up in without input from the other parent, this is true in any child custody situation. Cite me law that shows otherwise. This judge was well within his discretion to rule that Mom-A was not to teach her child that homosexuality is wrong in order to protect the relationship between the child and Mom-B when they have joint custody.

I find it interesting that none of the major GOP leadership has jumped on the bandwagon for this, that should tell you something Jimmy. It would be interesting to see if there's a story about this in a Colorado newspaper where a more full examination of the facts has happened. This story barely scratches the surface of what must be a complex legal process. Perhaps on that we can agree.

acludem

Although, granted, family courts have lattitude, such lattitude does not extend to rulings which contravene laws. There is a law in this country which has been upheld many times in every court in the land, including the highest, that the practice of religion is not to be infringed. That means that no judge can tell a christian that they cannot educate their children (and, let's face it, she is NOT the child of an exlover) the tenets of their relgion.

Forget what the case is about. The mere fact that a judge just told someone that it was now illegal to practice their religion stinks. It would stink if she were muslim. It would stink if she were catholic. It would stink if she were jewish. It would stink if she were married and her husband an agnostic.

She, the only legal parent, was just told she cannot raise her child as she sees fit.

If you really want to talk about the good of the child, how's telling a child that her mother's religion, the beliefs that she holds fundamentally near and dear, is wrong? Telling the child that your mother is not allowed to practice her religion. That a non-family member's sensibilities are more important than your own families? To me that's a hell of a lot more harmful for a child to be burdened with than having to live without visitation from a gay ex lover.

 

[William Joyce]

"Uh, William do the names William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia mean anything? Does the case Bush v. Gore mean anything? William Rehnquist is a right-wing judicial activist as are Thomas and Scalia."

Yes, this is true, especially in the case you mention.

Scalia is really only an "activist" in a very narrow area of jurisprudence --- due process for property deprivation by government, or the takings clause. Which is cool, I'm all for that. But on the whole, the court system hates conservatism.

 

[acludem]

According to the family court, the women have joint custody, that means they are both legal guardians, regardless of who originally adopted the child. Chances are, the women agreed on this originally. I still haven't heard any response to my question about why the GOP leaders in Colorado haven't jumped on the bandwagon for this. Could it be because there is more to this case than what is in this article? I'm guessing the answer to that question is yes.

Noone told this woman she can't take the kid to church or teach her religion, she just can't say that the other parent is wrong for being gay. That's it. I had several friends growing up who had divorced parents, and in two cases the parents vehemently disagreed on religion. I grew up across the street from two kids like this. Their Mom was a devout Catholic, and their father became a devout Pentacostal. The parents agreed that they would alternate churches each week. They both eventually chose one church, but not Catholic or Pentacostal interestingly.

acludem