Showing posts with label Judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge. Show all posts

November 16, 2016

Judge Bill Pryor in Tux and Naked in Bad Puppy Porn Site


 Bill Pryor, Suspended as Judge

⇪πŸ˜₯




                                                                                 
                                         
 This is Bill Pryor. Copy of Picture crop to hide his endowment
 
Donald Trump's victory in Tuesday night's Presidential Election paved the way for what could be a series of appointments to the country's highest court. Among the names on a Trump list of possible future Supreme Court Justices is an Alabama native and former state Attorney General known as a conservative jurist.

Bill Pryor, a Mobile native, is on Trump's list of 21 possible Supreme Court nominees. Pryor has steadfastly opposed Roe v. Wade – which legalized abortion – ruled against gay marriage and for religious organizations fighting Obamacare contraceptive mandates.

Those rulings align with what Trump said he was looking for in future nominees.

"(The candidates) are representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as president, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices," Trump said in a statement at the time.

Pryor served as Alabama's Attorney General from 1997-2004, becoming the youngest state AG in the U.S. In 2005, Pryor was nominated by President George W. Bush a U.S. Circuit Judge for the 11th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

A Catholic, Pryor is a 1984 graduate of Northeast Louisiana University and a 1987 graduate of Tulane University School of Law. He has also served as an adjunct professor at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law and deputy AG in Alabama from 1995-1997. He still serves as a visiting professor for the University of Alabama’s School of Law.

                                                          He is also an ex bad puppy

Judge Pryor also had interesting teen years as in badpuppy.com in a porno site. He appears naked as shown on the picture.

One of the Pictures of ex Judge Pryor was obtain on the following site:

adamfoxie blog was approached and made aware about this picture and the Judge early summer job. We did not see fitting with this site at the time of high importance and many other important things to post. But once this anti gay individual might be invited to work somewhere near the white House then at that point the truth should be put out there. People should know that he opposes what he is and for sure was when he was younger.
Pryor denies thats him but that is to be expected from this man.

September 29, 2016

Judge Suspended Before Pushing 10Commdts. Now for Refusing SSex Marriage






Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore should be removed from office again, this time for defying the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage, lawyers for a disciplinary commission argued on Wednesday.

Testifying under oath, Moore called the latest charges "ridiculous."

The ethics case involves an administrative order Moore sent six months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gays can marry in every U.S. state. Moore said then that because the Alabama Supreme Court had not rescinded the state's gay marriage ban, the state's probate judges remained bound by it.

The outspoken Republican jurist, now 69, was removed from office in 2003 for violating judicial ethics by refusing to remove a Ten Commandments statue, but voters later re-elected him.

"We are here 13 years later because the chief justice learned nothing from that first removal. He continues to defy law," attorney John Carroll told the Court of the Judiciary as he argued on behalf of the Judicial Inquiry Commission, which is seeking Moore's removal.

Moore said his January memo simply provided a status update to judges who had questions because the Alabama Supreme Court had not acted to reverse the state ban.

"I don't encourage anyone to defy a federal court or state court order," Moore said. "I gave them a status in the case, a status of the facts that these orders exist. That is all I did."

Moore's lawyer, Mat Staver, told the court that Moore "did not order them to disobey anything."

But Moore did acknowledge in a testy cross-examination that his administrative order told probate judges to follow the very same state court ban that a federal judge specifically said they could no longer enforce.

"His order sowed confusion. It did not clear it up. He urged defiance, not compliance," another lawyer for the commission, R. Ashby Pate, told the court.

The nine-member court now has 10 days to rule on whether Moore violated judicial ethics, and what punishment he should face if so. A decision to remove him from the bench must be unanimous. The chief judge, Michael Joiner, said a decision was not lik
ely Wednesday, but will come "as soon as possible."

Moore stands accused during a season of political upheaval Alabama. The house speaker was removed from office this summer for ethics violations, and a legislative committee will decide if evidence supports impeaching Gov. Robert Bentley after he was accused of having an affair with a top staffer.

Before the hearing began, rainbow flags and Christian music competed for attention outside.

"The truth is homosexuality is wrong," said Donna Holman, who traveled 12 hours from Iowa and carried a sign saying "It's not OK to be gay.

"Equal marriage is the law. Love will always win,” countered Madison Clark of Montgomery.

KIM CHANDLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS

August 18, 2016

Wyoming Judge Begs to Remain on Bench Despite Refusal to Perform SmeSex Marriages


Ruth Neely Anti Gay Marriage Judge


 
A Wyoming judge urged the state's Supreme Court Wednesday to let her remain on the bench despite her publicly stated refusal to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, citing religious objections.

The state's judicial ethics commission recommended that Ruth Neely be relieved of her position as a magistrate in the small northwestern Wyoming town of Pinedale, after she told the local newspaper that she would "not be able to do" marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
 
"When law and religion conflict, choices have to be made," she told the Pinedale Roundup.

In a letter to the state's judicial ethics advisory committee, she wrote, "Homosexuality is a named sin in the Bible, as are drunkenness, thievery, lying, and the like. I can no more officiate at a same-sex wedding than I can buy beer for the alcoholic.” 

Her lawyer told the court that she's being unconstitutionally punished for her religious views.

But the state judicial conduct board found that she violated ethics rules requiring judges to follow the law, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and perform duties fairly, without bias or prejudice.

"Judges do not enjoy the same freedom to proselytize their religious beliefs as ordinary citizens," the commission said, finding that her public statements amount to a conclusion that "adherence to the law is optional."

Because she violated ethics rules, the commission said, she should not be allowed to remain in her other job as a municipal court judge in Pinedale.
 
Urging the justices to allow Neely to remain on the bench, her lawyer said the commission "has adopted an extreme position. It claims that because Judge Neely's religious beliefs prevent her from solemnizing same-sex marriage, she cannot be a judge in Wyoming, even in a position that does not have authority to perform marriages."

She would tell any same-sex couple where they could find a magistrate to handle their wedding and would treat all gay and lesbian people in her courtroom fairly, her lawyer said.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, most local officials, including judges, have complied. While some county clerks refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds — most visibly, Kim Davis in Kentucky — clerks and judges have generally treated gay and lesbian couples no differently.

Only North Carolina and Utah have laws in effect that permit local officials to opt out, on religious grounds, of involvement with same-sex weddings. Judicial ethics commissions in Oregon and Washington have voted to sanction judges for refusing to officiate at same-sex marriages. In Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, state commissions have issued advisory opinions saying a judge would violate ethics rules for such a position.

The Wyoming Supreme Court said it would issue a written ruling later on Ruth Neely's appeal. For now, her authority to act as a local magistrate has been suspended, though she is still serving as the Pinedale town judge. 

PETE WILLIAMS

July 2, 2016

Judge Stops Cold Anti LGBT Law ‘Your right to believe should not be paid by my freedoms’

Image result for religion on my freedoms


   
                                                                          
                                                                       
                                                                            








Almost at the last minute, a federal judge has declared a controversial Mississippi law unconstitutional.

The law, HB 1523, would have protected religious objections to gay marriage, extramarital sex and transgender identities. The judge says it favors some religious beliefs over others and would codify unequal treatment of LGBT people.

The Rev. Chris Donald, a Methodist chaplain at Millsaps College, joins other human rights advocates Wednesday at the state Capitol's rotunda, calling for the Mississippi Senate to defeat what they believe is a discriminatory anti-LGBT bill. The Senate passed the bill, which is now on the governor’s desk.  
The state's governor has said he looks forward to an appeal, but Mississippi's attorney general has expressed hesitation over appealing the case.

As the Two-Way has previously reported, the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" was described by its proponents as a religious freedom bill. But it didn't protect all religious beliefs. Here's Section 2 of the bill:

“The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:

"(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
"(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
“(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth."

Under the law, Mississippi residents who used one of those moral convictions to justify behavior — including individuals declining to offer business or medical services; religious organizations firing or disciplining employees; and state employees refusing to license marriages — could not be punished by the state.(Many of these forms of discrimination against gay and trans people are currently legal in Mississippi, and in many other states. For instance, business owners in Mississippi can already refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple without breaking the law.)
 

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves ruled on Monday on one portion of the law, and declared that state employees could not deny marriage licenses based on religious objections.

On Thursday night, Reeves went further and ruled on the law as a whole. He said that instead of protecting religious freedom, it violated the First Amendment by essentially endorsing specific religious beliefs over others. Some of the plaintiffs in the case were religious leaders from denominations that do not object to gay marriage.

He also said the law was poised to cause irreparable harm to LGBT residents of Mississippi.

It is difficult to see the compelling government interest in favoring three enumerated religious beliefs over others.
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves

"There are almost endless explanations for how HB 1523 condones discrimination against the LGBT community, but in its simplest terms it denies LGBT citizens equal protection under the law," Reeves wrote.

He also noted that many of the protections offered by the law — the reasons proponents saw it as necessary — were already provided by the First Amendment and Mississippi's own Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Supporters of the bill had previously said they hoped for an appeals court decision should Reeves rule against them, Mississippi Today reports:

" 'The bill, all it was ever intended to do is protect the religious liberties of everyone in the state,' said State Senator Jenifer Branning (R-Leake), who sponsored the bill, when asked on Tuesday what would happen if it is overturned. 'So I think that's what it does. I'm confident it will be appealed to the [Fifth Circuit]. So we'll see what happens there.' "
On Friday, Gov. Phil Bryant said in a statement that he "look[s] forward to an aggressive appeal."

All it was ever intended to do is protect the religious liberties of everyone in the state ...
State Sen. Jenifer Branning, bill sponsor, to Mississippi Today
State Attorney General Jim Hood, who was named in the lawsuit and tasked with defending the law, spoke to NPR's Morning Edition before the judge's decision was announced. He said that from his perspective, the law "doesn't accomplish anything," because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have. He also criticized the litigation costs it presents — but said he's doing his job.

"When a law is passed for political reasons, there are impacts of it. My job is to separate my mind from my emotion and make my decisions whether I defend it or not, and I do my duty," he said.

In a statement on Friday, after Bryant announced he was anticipating an appeal, Hood expressed hesitation about an appeal.

"The fact is that the churchgoing public was duped into believing that HB 1523 protected religious freedoms," he said. He said, for instance, that some leaders suggested that without the law, pastors would be forced to marry gay couples, something no court has ever supported.

I will have to think long and hard about spending taxpayer money to appeal the case ...
State Attorney General Jim Hood

"I hate to see politicians continue to prey on people who pray, go to church, follow the law and help their fellow man," Hood wrote. "In consideration of the individual rights of all our citizens, the state's current budget crisis and the cost of appeal, I will have to think long and hard about spending taxpayer money to appeal the case against me."

Susan Hrostowski, one of the plaintiffs in the case, also spoke to Morning Edition after the decision was announced.

"I'm an Episcopal priest, and I'm kind of crazy about the gospel, and I'm crazy about Jesus. And his message was that we should love one another, so I found this bill to be offensive from that perspective," she said. "But then also, as a lesbian — I've been with my wife for 27 years now, and we have a son. And so for both of those reasons, I just fought to make sure that people like me weren't mistreated in the state of Mississippi."

She said she was elated with the decision, and remembered back to a moment during the hearing when the case of Obergefell v. Hodges — the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states — came up:

"The judge was asking the state, what were the nonreligious reasons for this bill? And they said, 'Well, Obergefell tipped the tables of justice away from people who are against gay marriage.'
"And Judge Reeves said, 'Well, isn't that like saying Brown v. Board of Education tipped the tables away from segregationists?'
"You know, when you have an oppressed population and they make some gains, that doesn't mean the oppressor has the right to retaliate. ...
"Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms.”
                                                                                           
by
                  
                               

May 7, 2016

Chief Judge Who Refused to Issue Same Sex Marriage Licenses Gets Suspended


                                                                          
                                                                         
Roy Moore responds to complaintsAlabama Chief Justice Roy Moore responds to complaints made in January by various groups protesting his administrative order explaining the legal status of the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Act and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act in Montgomery, Ala. (Julie Bennett/jbennett@al.com)
 























An Alabama judicial oversight body on Friday filed a formal complaint against Roy S. Moore, the chief justice of the state’s Supreme Court, charging that he had “flagrantly disregarded and abused his authority” in ordering the state’s probate judges to refuse applications for marriage licenses by same-sex couples.

As a result of the charges, Chief Justice Moore, 69, has been immediately suspended from the bench and is facing a potential hearing before the state’s Court of the Judiciary, a panel of judges, lawyers and other appointees. Among possible outcomes at such a hearing would be his removal from office.

“We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail,” Chief Justice Moore said in a statement, saying that the Judicial Inquiry Commission, which filed the complaint, had no authority over the charges at issue.

Referring to a transgender activist in Alabama, Chief Justice Moore said the commission had “chosen to listen to people like Ambrosia Starling, a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda.”

It is the second complaint lodged by the state’s Judicial Inquiry Commission against the judge. In 2003, he was ousted by the same body from his position as chief justice after disobeying a federal court order to remove a two-ton monument of the Ten Commandments that he had installed in the rotunda of the state judicial building.

He was elected to that office again nine years later.

The current complaint concerns Chief Justice Moore’s actions after federal court decisions regarding same-sex marriage. Last spring, he directed probate judges in Alabama not to abide by a Federal District Court’s order striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, holding that issuing licenses to same-sex couples would violate the Alabama Constitution.

In January, six months after the United States Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right, Chief Justice Moore, in an administrative order, instructed the state’s probate judges that they had a “ministerial duty” to enforce the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Nearly all of the probate judges in the state have been issuing licenses to same-sex couples, though a few have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether.

In his order, he argued that the Supreme Court’s decision applied only to the four states involved in the case that was before the court, and not to Alabama. That view runs counter to that of the federal district and appellate courts with jurisdiction over Alabama, and, according to the formal complaint, is “contrary to clear and determined law about which there is no confusion or unsettled question.”

The complaint lists six charges against Chief Justice Moore, and lays out several violations of the state’s canons of judicial ethics.

Richard Cohen, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had filed a series of complaints to the commission, said Chief Justice Moore “has disgraced his office for far too long.”

“For the good of the state he should be kicked out of office,” he added.

Chief Justice Moore held a news conference last week at which he argued he was upholding the law as he interpreted it in his capacity as a judge.

“This is about legalism,” he said, wearing his judicial robe and speaking to reporters in the rotunda of the state judicial building. “There is nothing in writing that you will find that I told anybody to disobey a federal court order.”

On Friday, his lawyer, Mathew Staver, made a similar argument, insisting the matter at hand was one that could only be decided by the United States Supreme Court.

“The Judicial Inquiry Commission has no jurisdiction to resolve legal disputes,” he said, “and the complaint is solely focused on a legal dispute between federal and state courts.”

February 2, 2016

Panel Recommends Removal of Fl Judge Refused Issue Gay Marriage Licenses



                                                                           
Vance Day


 A state judicial fitness panel has recommended the removal of a Marion County judge who came under scrutiny last year for refusing to perform same-sex marriages based on his religious beliefs.

The Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability filed its recommendation to the state Supreme Court on Monday, accusing Marion County Judge Vance Day of discrimination based on sexual orientation and a myriad of other ethical violations.

"His misconduct is not isolated. It is frequent and extensive," the commission wrote in its recommendation, which followed an investigation and a weeks-long disciplinary hearing that concluded late last year. "Judge Day's pattern of behavior includes misconduct for personal gain and misconduct amounting to criminal behavior ... His misconduct is of such a nature as to impugn his honesty and integrity."

Patrick Korten, Day's spokesman, said he wasn't immediately able to provide a full response given the recommendation was filed late in the day, but he added that Day and his legal team were disappointed.

"The opinion is especially troubling because it disregards Judge Day's First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, speech and association," Korten said in a prepared statement. "He will vigorously defend these rights, and his innocence of the remaining charges, before the Oregon Supreme Court."

The commission is accusing Day of "willfully" violating 10 rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct, from threatening a youth-sports referee to soliciting money from lawyers appearing before him to allowing a convicted felon to handle a gun.

But it was his refusal to perform same-sex marriages after it became legal in Oregon in May 2014 and nationwide a year later that drew the most attention.

The commission said that when a same-sex couple asked Day to perform their marriage, he told his staff to lie about his availability and direct them to another judge.

"Day asserts that this system of discrimination 'accommodated' same sex couples ... the idea that a discriminatory practice is a positive 'accommodation' to those being discriminated against shows a deplorable lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of impartiality," the commission wrote in its recommendation.

Despite the commission receiving dozens of complaints every year, one rarely results in a formal disciplinary proceeding. Day is now the sixth judge since 2007 to have been referred for sanctions to the Supreme Court, which will have the final say.

By  Kristena Hansen, Associated Press. Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The Gayly

January 8, 2016

Alabama Judge Defies Superior Judge and Orders Same Sex Licenses to be Issued




A judge in an Alabama county resumed issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples Thursday, defying an order from the state’s highest justice a day earlier banning the action.
The courthouse in Madison County, a northern Alabama county that holds the liberal college town of Huntsville, continued issuing the licenses, WAFF-TV reported, with dozens of same-sex marriage supporters lining up outside the building to celebrate the act of noncompliance.
Roy Moore, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, on Wednesday ordered the state's probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 
On Wednesday, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore issued an order banning all lower judges in the state from providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
"Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect," Moore, a Republican with a well-documented history of speaking out publicly against gay marriage, wrote.
His order directly defied the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last June that effectively legalized gay marriage nationwide.
The state laws Moore referred to in his ruling — Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act — both make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages.
Moore's latest order could set up a controversial showdown between state and federal authorities over the flashpoint issue similar to one that erupted last year in Kentucky.
A protester waving a bible walks past as two women  in Birmingham, Ala. 
                   

July, Rowan County (Kentucky) Clerk Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, citing her Christian beliefs.
Her decision defied the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage and resulted in her being jailed for contempt of court for five days.

January 7, 2016

AL Supreme Justice Holding to his Robe and Not Allowing Same Sex Marriage to be Issued



                                                                         
 Elected Judge RoyS. Moore and next to him the 10 Commandments, which was another
problem with him wanting to display them on the court house
                                                                          


The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, on Wednesday ordered probate judges in the state not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move that could cloud the carrying out of the United States Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex unions.

Within hours of the administrative order, the probate court in Mobile County said on its website that it was “not issuing marriage licenses to any applicants until further notice.” That probate office, among the busiest in Alabama, was involved in the litigation that last year prompted a federal judge to strike down the state’s marriage restrictions as unconstitutional and, ultimately, issue an injunction forbidding probate judges “from enforcing the Alabama laws which prohibit or fail to recognize same-sex marriage.” 

Chief Justice Moore previously used an administrative order to try to derail same-sex nuptials in Alabama. On a Sunday night last February, hours before same-sex marriages were scheduled to begin in the state, he issued a similar order to probate judges, most of whom defied the edict.

On Wednesday, Chief Justice Moore, who is among the country’s most prominent religious conservatives, argued, in part, that probate judges should not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of a State Supreme Court decision that upheld Alabama’s marriage prohibitions. The conflicting decisions in Washington and Montgomery, the chief justice wrote, led to “confusion and uncertainty” among Alabama’s probate judges about how to apply the federal court’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

“Many probate judges are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in accordance with Obergefell; others are issuing marriage licenses only to couples of the opposite gender or have ceased issuing all marriage licenses,” he wrote. “This disparity affects the administration of justice in this state.”

The chief justice’s order prompted criticism from supporters of same-sex marriage.

“Roy Moore is obstructing same-sex couples’ access to marriage, which they are constitutionally guaranteed,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign. “This is just more of his shenanigans. It’s about him and his personal beliefs at this point, rather than carrying out the rule of law.”

Some probate judges said they would ignore the chief justice.

In a post on Twitter, Judge Steven L. Reed of Montgomery County Probate Court called the order a charade and said he would continue to process marriage licenses for all couples.

Legal experts also questioned the chief justice’s order.

“Ordering the state’s probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to all couples who seek them constitutes an exercise in futility,” Ronald Krotoszynski, a law professor at the University of Alabama, wrote in an email. “At best, it sows chaos and confusion; at worst, it forces couples to bring federal court litigation in order to exercise a clearly established federal constitutional right.”

November 17, 2015

Utah Judge Who Ruled Against Lesbian Moms Steps Down



                                                                           
 Superior Judge Scott Johansen learned what it is to go against the US Law that Allows marriage to families of the same sex. This is not the same world as his dad knew then. Having a Superior Judge of a state back down on a decision within days after making it he encountered a tremendous backlash. The animal shelter cleaner position was probably being held for him.  It didn’t matter that this judge was a conservative republican in a conservative republican state; The winds have changed.


Utah judge who had ordered a baby girl taken away from her lesbian foster mothers and placed in a heterosexual home removed himself from the case Monday as criticism turned into calls for his impeachment.

Though Judge Scott Johansen had reversed his decision and allowed the 9-month-old baby to stay with the married women recommended by state welfare authorities, there were concerns he could still have the baby removed from their home in Price later on.
April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce asked for the judge to be disqualified, saying that the decision revealed a potential bias that broke the rules of judicial conduct, their lawyer Jim Hunnicutt said.
While Johansen disputed their legal standing to call for his removal, he nevertheless stepped aside nearly a week after the Nov. 10 order criticized by national gay rights groups, the state’s Republican governor and others.

                                                                     
 Moms fought for their kids

The couple applauded Johansen's decision and said they're happy the family is being treated equally.
"Our greatest concern now is taking care of our beautiful baby foster daughter," Hoagland and Peirce said in a statement.
Utah officials are pleased the child will stay in a nurturing home with the "very capable" parents, said Ashley Sumner, a spokeswoman for the Utah Division of Child and Family Services.
The case will be referred to presiding juvenile Judge Mary Manley. The couple feels like the change will make them much more likely to get a fair shot at adopting the baby girl they've been fostering for three months, Hunnicutt said.
"They are just two wonderful, normal parents with a happy baby to take care of," he said.
In his initial decision handed down during a routine hearing, Johansen mentioned research showing children do better when raised by heterosexual families. The American Psychological Association, however, has said there's no scientific basis for believing that gays and lesbians are unfit parents based on sexual orientation.
A gay rights group has filed a complaint with state judicial officials, and the watchdog group Alliance for a Better Utah on Monday called for state lawmakers to impeach the judge.
Johansen is barred from speaking about pending cases and a call to his publicly listed phone number went unanswered Monday.
Josh Kantor, the founder of the progressive-leaning Alliance for a Better Utah, said the judge's move would not change the group's push to get state lawmakers to remove him from the bench.
"This guy now has a pattern of doing these kinds of outrageous things," Kanter said.
Johansen, who has been a state judge since 1992, has had previous questions about his conduct. He was given a reprimand from the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission after he slapped a 16-year-old boy who allegedly became belligerent and insulting in his chambers in 1995.
Three years ago, a woman filed a complaint against the judge after he told her to cut off her 13-year-old daughter's ponytail in court in order to reduce the girl's sentence for cutting off a 3-year-old girl's hair.
The Human Rights Campaign is also pressing their complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission, which can recommend a judge's removal. That group alleged Johansen discriminated against the couple based on sexual orientation and called for a quick decision ahead of the custody hearing next month.
 The Associated Press.

November 5, 2014

Judge says Kansas Can not stop issuance of gay marriage licenses


                                                                            

KANSAS CITY, Kan. (KSNT) – A federal district court judge says the state of Kansas cannot stop a Johnson County district court  judge from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing its constitutional ban as of 5 p.m. next Tuesday, pending the outcome of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenging it.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued to overturn Kansas’ ban after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from five states seeking to save their gay marriage bans. Among them were Oklahoma and Utah, which are in the same appeals court circuit as Kansas.
The ACLU says denying the couples it is representing the right to marry, even for a short period, would do them irreparable harm.s denying the couples it is representing the right to marry, even for a short period, would do them irreparable harm.
State Attorney General Derek Schmidt had argued that when a Johnson County district court judge allowed same-sex marriage licenses to be issued last month that it violated a state constitutional amendment stating marriage is only between a man and a woman.
In issuing his ruling, Crabtree wrote “On one hand, ‘it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.’ On the other hand, the public interest values enforcement of democratically enacted laws. This latter value must yield though, when binding precedent shows that the laws are unconstitutional.”
In concluding, he notes “Consistent with this precedent, the Court concludes that the public interest favors protecting plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by enjoining Kansas’ plainly unconstitutional provisions.
The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law says the ruling affects as many as 4,009 “cohabitating same-sex couples, of whom an estimated 22% are raising nearly 1,750 children in their homes.”
Crabtree wrote that Kansas’ ban is infringing on the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and he seemed reluctant to delay their right to marry, even by a week. He said the 10th Circuit had already settled the substance of the constitutional challenge, but conceded that the appeals court may view the case differently than he views it.
The institute also says that more than 2,000 of those couples will marry in the first three years of licenses becoming available and will generate spending of more than $14.1 million in Kansas with an additional $1.15 million generated in sales tax revenue. It finally predicts that same-sex couples’ wedding ceremonies and celebrations is expected to create between 75 and 225 jobs in tourism and recreation for the state.

August 27, 2014

Fed Judge Bristled at the stupid arguments against Bans Vs Gay Marriage


                                                                            

 Federal appeals judges bristled Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.
As the legal skirmish over same-sex marriage shifted to the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, more than 200 people lined up hoping to get a spot in the hearing room.
Attorneys general in both states are trying to reinstate bans that were ruled unconstitutional in June. The outcome of the case also could directly affect hundreds of couples who were married after federal judges overturned the bans but before their rulings were put on hold pending appeal.
Gay marriage is currently legal in 19 states as well as the District of Columbia, and momentum is building for more states to recognize it. Advocates have won more than 20 court victories around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage in 2013.
Judge Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, was dismissive when Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson repeatedly pointed to 'tradition' as the underlying justification for barring gay marriage.
"It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away," Posner said. Prohibition of same-sex marriage, he said, is "a tradition of hate … and savage discrimination."
Posner frequently cut off Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fischer, just moments into his presentation and chided him to answer his questions.
At one point, Posner ran through a list of psychological strains of unmarried same-sex couples, including having to struggle to grasp why their schoolmates' parents were married and theirs weren't.
"What horrible stuff," Posner said. What benefits to society in barring gay marriage, he asked, "outweighs that kind of damage to children?"
The answer has to do with "procreation," Fisher answered.
"All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher said. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not… we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism."
Some couples whose marriages are in limbo lined up outside the 25th-floor courtroom as early as 5 a.m. Among them was Ruth Morrison, a retired Indianapolis Fire Department battalion chief. She noted that because Indiana won't recognize the woman she married in another state as her wife, she wouldn't be able to pass on pension and other benefits if she dies.
"Now Indiana tells us our promises are only good if our spouses are of the opposite sex," Morrison, wearing a fire department uniform, said during a rally ahead of the hearing Monday night.
Lawyers representing both states, along with attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, a national group working for gay rights, were allotted 20 minutes each to argue their case.
Besides Posner, the judges who heard the case were Ann Claire Williams, a Bill Clinton appointee, and David Hamilton, appointed by President Barack Obama. It's unclear when the court might issue a ruling.
A voter-approved constitutional amendment bans gay marriage in Wisconsin. State law prohibits it in Indiana. Neither state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The lawsuits raise similar arguments on behalf of several gay and lesbian plaintiffs, contending that the bans violate the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee.
Van Hollen noted that Wisconsin has traditionally defined marriage as a union between a man and woman. Zoeller has maintained that his state has a legitimate interest in promoting traditional marriage as a means of encouraging environments where biological parents raise their children.
The ACLU and Lambda Legal have essentially reiterated their equal protection arguments in appeals court filings, arguing that the bans deny gay couples state and federal legal protections and benefits that married straight couples enjoy.
"The freedom to marry is a core aspect of personal liberty for all Americans," the ACLU said in its briefs.
There was some levity during the hearing. As Samuelson struggled to offer a specific reason for how gay marriage bans benefit society, he suddenly noted a yellow courtroom light signaling his allotted time was up.
"It won't save you," Williams told him, prompting laughter in court.
Samuleson smiled, and said: “it was worth a try."
sources: AP and USA Today

May 15, 2014

Harry Reid Opposes Obama’s Pick of Lifetime Appt. for Homophobic Judge

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) responds to a reporter's question during a news conference on April 29. (EPA/MICHAEL REYNOLDS)
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) responds to a reporter's question during a news conference on April 29. (EPA/MICHAEL REYNOLDS)
{yesterday’s posting on this on going story: http://adamfoxie.blogspot.com/2014/05/obama-fights-his-own-party-to-appoint.html }                                                              
                                                                                      {*}
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday that he is opposed to one of President Obama's nominees to serve on a federal court in Georgia, a stance that could torpedo the nomination and complicate the White House's plans to quickly confirm dozens of judicial picks before election season begins in earnest.
Reid told reporters Wednesday that he will not support the nomination of Michael Boggs to serve on the federal district court for the northern district of Georgia, saying that he has doubts about Boggs's previous comments and votes on issues related to abortion rights, civil rights and gay rights.
He has served as a state appeals court judge since 2012 and previously was a state superior court judge. But as a state senator from 2000 to 2004, Boggs, a conservative Democrat, supported keeping the Confederate emblem on the Georgia state flag; supported establishing a "Choose Life" license plate that helped fund anti-abortion groups; opposed same-sex marriage; and supported a measure that would require parents to accompany their daughters to abortion clinics if the daughter is younger than 18.
“Unless I have a better explanation. I can’t vote for him. This is a lifetime appointment. He’s said some things and made some decisions I think are not very good," Reid told BuzzFeed. He added that he had not yet conveyed his thoughts to the White House.
Reid first signaled doubts about Boggs on Tuesday when he voiced support for David L. Barron, another judicial pick opposed by some Democrats and Republicans because of his involvement in formulating the legal reasoning to justify unmanned aerial drone strikes on Americans overseas. Reid said he would back Barron, but said he would withhold judgment of Boggs.
Boggs and other nominees to sit on federal courts in Georgia testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but only Boggs faced sharp, detailed questioning from senators of both parties.
Several Democratic senators quizzed Boggs on his support as a Georgia lawmaker for a proposal that would have disclosed the number of abortions performed by doctors. Critics of the proposal said such a list would have endangered the lives of abortion providers.
"In light of what I subsequently learned, I don't think it would be appropriate to" support the proposal, Boggs said.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) also pressed Boggs to explain his support for a new state flag that would preserve elements of the Confederate flag. Boggs said that while he was personally "offended" by the flag, he knew that the "overwhelming majority" of his constituents wanted to hold a referendum on whether to change the flag's design.
"One of the most challenging things of being a legislator was deciding when to vote the will of my constituents and when to vote the will of myself," Boggs told Durbin, adding later: "I struggled with it regularly."
Ultimately, Boggs said, "I’m glad the flag was changed."
Reid's announcement comes as the Senate is scheduled to confirm three more federal district court judges later Wednesday. The Senate has confirmed dozens of judicial picks in recent weeks amid ongoing stalemate over legislation. Obama's picks are being confirmed at a level nearly on par with George W. Bush at this point in his presidency. But dozens of vacancies remain across the federal court system.

March 7, 2014

Arkansas Judge Admits to Racists,Sexist Inappropriate Postings



This photo taken Feb. 24, 2014, and provided by the Arkansas Secretary of State on Thursday, March 6, 2014, shows Circuit Judge Mike Maggio posing in Little Rock, Ark. Maggio has admitted that he anonymously posted online comments that critics say are racist, sexist and otherwise inappropriate, including one in which he revealed alleged details of confidential adoption proceedings involving actress Charlize Theron and her son. (AP Photo/Arkansas Secretary of State, Danny Harris)

An Arkansas judge has admitted that he posted a series of anonymous online comments that critics say are racist, sexist and otherwise inappropriate, including one in which he revealed alleged details of confidential proceedings involving actress Charlize Theron's adoption of her son.
Circuit Judge Mike Maggio acknowledged Wednesday that he posted the comments on a Louisiana State University fan message board, Tiger Droppings, under the pseudonym "geauxjudge." He also ended his campaign for a seat on the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
"I take full responsibility for the comments that have been attributed to me," Maggio said in a statement. "I apologize deeply for my lapse in personal judgment and for that, I have no excuse. The comments posted were not acceptable. These comments are not a reflection of who I am."
The state's Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission is investigating Maggio's postings, said its executive director, David Sachar.
Maggio, whose term as a 20th Judicial District judge expires at the end of the year, asked for privacy for his family. He didn't immediately respond to an email or phone message left at his office Thursday seeking comment.
Political blogger Matt Campbell first suggested that "geauxjudge" was Maggio in a Monday posting on his website, Blue Hog Report. He included screen grabs of "geauxjudge" postings from the past few years, including some that dropped biographical hints or that many would find racist, sexist or homophobic.
In a Jan. 17, 2012, posting, "geauxjudge" disclosed what he said were details of Theron's adoption proceedings. He wrote that a "judge friend" handled the case, but it wasn't immediately clear if Maggio, himself, was involved. Such proceedings are confidential in Arkansas, and there are no cases in the state's online court records that mention Theron's name. Her publicist, Amanda Silverman, declined to comment about the matter.
Theron announced in March 2012 that she had adopted a boy from South Africa named Jackson.
In a June 2011 posting, "geauxjudge" suggested that women who seek divorces after their husbands cheat may be better off financially by staying married. In Arkansas, circuit judges like Maggio handle divorce cases, among other civil and criminal casework.
"I see it everyday. A woman makes (an) emotional decision to divorce because the husband stepped out. When otherwise he was a good provider, father, and husband," the posting says. "Then a year or two later realizes uh oh I am worse off financially, emotionally and relationship wise but hey they showed that SOB. Too many times the women get their advice from other divorced women."
In a posting from last December about baby names, "geauxjudge" wrote about the effect a name can have on an individual's success, the website reported.
"How many Doctors do you hear named Dr. Taneesha or HaHa?" he wrote, apparently referring to Ha'Sean "Ha Ha" Clinton-Dix, a black University of Alabama football player. "How many bankers do (you) hear named Brylee? So stick with something close to normal. Or come sit in criminal court any day and see the 'common names.'"
Responding to a story about a woman who was arrested for allegedly having sex with a dog, “geauxjudge" wrote that it was "just a small step" from having "TGGLBS" sex, an apparent reference to transgender, gay, lesbian or bisexual sex.
AP

Featured Posts

Is Trump Dancing to the Putin Orchestra? Put the “Π’ΠΎΡ‡ΠΊΠΈ вмСстС"

πŸ”«♛πŸ”«♛πŸ”«♛πŸ”«♛πŸ”«♛πŸ”«♛πŸ”«♛πŸ”«♛πŸ”«♛πŸ”«♛α™›α™‘α™α™α™Žα™…α™°α™©α™α™‡ ᐗ It’s terrifying to think that the Trump administration is simply wing...