Parental Notification for abortion

[michaeledward]

The state of Tennessee requires parental notification prior to a minor receiving an abortion. Like most intelligent laws on this matter, there was written into law a judicial bypass. A minor may seek petition the court to bypass the parental notification.

Well, it seems some public officials feel that they should be able to prevent that judicial bypass option. Trouble is, the public officials are the judges of Shelby County.

http://nytimes.com/2005/09/04/national/04recuse.html

MEMPHIS - A pregnant teenager went to the grand and imposing county courthouse here early in the summer, saying she wanted an abortion. The circuit court judge refused to hear the case, and he announced that he would recuse himself from any others like it.

"Taking the life of an innocent human being is contrary to the moral order," the judge, John R. McCarroll of Shelby County Circuit Court, wrote in June. "I could not in good conscience make a finding that would allow the minor to proceed with the abortion."

Aren't officers of the court required to uphold the laws?

Sounds like a case for impeachment, don't you think?

 

[KenpoEMT]

Apparently, this judge couldn't care less about the possibility of a pregnancy resulting from incest. Parental notification in that instance is insane.

I can't stand activist judges, regardless of which political ideology they adhere to. Let the legislature write the laws; judges should limit themselves to enforcement.

 

[Tgace]

If the judge didnt think he/she could be impartial isnt it best that he recuse himself? The real question is was the girl unable to find any judge that would hear her case. That would be a problem.

 

[proud beginner]

These people may have strange relations with their own daughter(s) !

 

[michaeledward]

If the judge didnt think he/she could be impartial isnt it best that he recuse himself? The real question is was the girl unable to find any judge that would hear her case. That would be a problem.

Five of the Nine Judges in the county court, apparently, refuse to hear these cases. If more than 50% of the judges are unwilling to preside over a petition, should they be allowed to continue in their current occupation?

If they are allowed to continue, why have laws at all?

"Unwillingness to follow the law," the letter said, "is not a legitimate ground for recusal."

 

[Tgace]

Just hearing the case doesn't mean that the abortion will be allowed. The judge still has to make the decision. I guess I would prefer the judge recuse himself than hear the case and make biased decisions.

 

[michaeledward]

Just hearing the case doesn't mean that the abortion will be allowed. The judge still has to make the decision. I guess I would prefer the judge recuse himself than hear the case and make biased decisions.

Do you turn a blind eye to a crime being committed if you feel the crime is, for some reason, objectionable to you?

 

[Tgace]

Im not a judge. I arrest on probable cause with a limited ammount of discretion. Judges, when the matter extends past yes/no decisions and caselaw, sometimes have to make more fuzzy decisions (judgement calls so to speak). As they are humans with their own biases/beliefs, I respect any judge that says "I dont believe I can be unbiased on this case" and recuses themselves. Its better than "activist judges" that take cases and make decisions with those biases to further their causes.

If you want to parallel abortion and "crime" though that may be for a different thread...

 

[michaeledward]

Im not a judge. I arrest on probable cause with a limited ammount of discretion. Judges, when the matter extends past yes/no decisions and caselaw, sometimes have to make more fuzzy decisions (judgement calls so to speak). As they are humans with their own biases/beliefs, I respect any judge that says "I dont believe I can be unbiased on this case" and recuses themselves. Its better than "activist judges" that take cases and make decisions with those biases to further their causes.

You arrest on probable cause of what?

A judge that refuses to hear a petition as outlined by the laws of a state is an 'Activist Judge'. He or she is taking an active position that prevents the laws of the state from being executed as spelled out by the appropriate legislative bodies.

A judge should recuse himself or herself when there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, such as long association with one of the witnesses, or financial interest in the outcome of a proceeding.

If the judge is unable to preside over a petition because of his or her personal beliefs, isn't it time to find another line of work?



The judge in question stated :

"Taking the life of an innocent human being is contrary to the moral order"

​

Isn't that in conflict with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States?



As of this time, our judicial system does not view the fetus as an 'innocent human being'.

This judge is not alone. By taking this position, aren't these the very 'activist judges' the conservatives decry; Introducing a new definition for fetus?

 

[Tgace]

So when a judge has a girl that comes before him with the reason for no parental consent being that an abortion "would hurt their relationship". What is the legal grounds that the judge has for granting/denying the judicial bypass? Unless there is a list of acceptable/unacceptable reasons, the judge has to make a decision. If they believe they cant be biased they should recuse themselves. So you are saying that ALL judges MUST be pro-choice? Should no Catholic judges be allowed?

BTW: Probable Cause:A reasonable ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person to believe that an accused person is guilty of the offense which he/she is charged.

 

[michaeledward]

So when a judge has a girl that comes before him with the reason for no parental consent being that an abortion "would hurt their relationship". What is the legal grounds that the judge has for granting/denying the judicial bypass? Unless there is a list of acceptable/unacceptable reasons, the judge has to make a decision. If they believe they cant be biased they should recuse themselves. So you are saying that ALL judges MUST be pro-choice? Should no Catholic judges be allowed?

Surely, you are familiar with the phrase 'Separation of Church and State'.

I don't care what the judges personal opinions concerning abortion are. Judges are required, however, to be 'pro-law'.

If, however, a judge is unable or unwilling to uphold the laws of the United States, their home state or district, then they are unfit for duty. It becomes a dereliction of duty.

BTW: Probable Cause:A reasonable ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person to believe that an accused person is guilty of the offense which he/she is charged.

Help me understand further ... "guilty of the offense" ... what does that actually mean?

Can it be just any old thing you find 'offensive', like, for instance, a liberal from New Hampshire?

 

[Tgace]

Surely, you are familiar with the phrase 'Separation of Church and State'.

I don't care what the judges personal opinions concerning abortion are. Judges are required, however, to be 'pro-law'.

If, however, a judge is unable or unwilling to uphold the laws of the United States, their home state or district, then they are unfit for duty. It becomes a dereliction of duty.

You didnt answer my question first. In a situation where the reason for a judicial by pass is "I dont want to upset my parents" what should the decision be? In your mind a by-pass should be automatic apparently. If the judge thought that their "pro-choice" leanings would let them grant a by-pass when it isnt the right thing to to, they should recuse themselves too.

Help me understand further ... "guilty of the offense" ... what does that actually mean?

Can it be just any old thing you find 'offensive', like, for instance, a liberal from New Hampshire?

Now your just being a **** ****...

 

[Tgace]

The judge is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t in the opinion of the liberal party line. On the one hand, if he recuses himself to avoid a conflict between the law and his faith, then he is a moral coward without convictions. And if he were to follow his convictions he would be labeled a theocratic right-wing nutjob.

Its convenient for liberals to throw around words like “law” and “convictions” but what they are truly interested in is having the Courts share *their* opinions, pursue *their* agendas, and cater to *their* whims. You’ve already expressed your bias against people who are against abortion on demand, regardless of the convictions of those who oppose it. You show nothing but disdain for the convictions of other people, even when they acquiesce to the Roe vs Wade status quo. These judges are doing the right thing in keeping their opinions out of their decisions.

Im done.

 

[michaeledward]

You didnt answer my question first.

Assuming your first question was:

"What is the legal grounds that the judge has for granting/denying the judicial bypass?"
​

Well, that is something the citizens need to take up with their legislature. If the legislature doesn't spell out the specific reasons a judge can rule affirmatively or negatively, then I suppose the judge would have to use some discretion. You are allowed to use a limited amount of discretion in your job. Ins't it reasonable that a judge is allowed a limited amount of discretion, as well.

"But the state also allows another option. The teenagers can ask a judge for permission to decide for themselves."
​

It seems that no one is asking the judge to perform an abortion, or to pay for an abortion. It seems that the law is stating a minor must petition the court for the ability to make a decision as an adult.

Many states have child emancipation laws, is this any different?

Help me understand further ... "guilty of the offense" ... what does that actually mean?
Can it be just any old thing you find 'offensive', like, for instance, a liberal from New Hampshire?

Now your just being a **** ****...

So let me interpret this ad hominem.

"guilty of the offense" means that someone actually has to break a law. If the law is not on the books (such as outlawing liberals from New Hampshire), then you actually have no amount of discretion. You can choose to arrest a person on probable cause that the broke the law.

So, here is a citizen, attempting to live within the strictures of the law, and denied because a judge has a personal objection to the law.

This law is on the books. The judge does not get to claim a certain amount of discretion in whether the law should be enforced or not. If the petitioner is before the court, his duty is to preside over the petition.

Last I looked, Lady of Justice is depicted most often with a blindfold. Wonder why that is.

 

[michaeledward]

The judge is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t in the opinion of the liberal party line. On the one hand, if he recuses himself to avoid a conflict between the law and his faith, then he is a moral coward without convictions. And if he were to follow his convictions he would be labeled a theocratic right-wing nutjob.

Its convenient for liberals to throw around words like “law” and “convictions” but what they are truly interested in is having the Courts share *their* opinions, pursue *their* agendas, and cater to *their* whims. You’ve already expressed your bias against people who are against abortion on demand, regardless of the convictions of those who oppose it. You show nothing but disdain for the convictions of other people, even when they acquiesce to the Roe vs Wade status quo. These judges are doing the right thing in keeping their opinions out of their decisions.

Im done.

Abortion on demand is not the law of the land. I would think an officer of the law would know that.

And this has nothing to do with my opinion. Don't know why you keep attempting to spin it that way. But go ahead, ad hominem away.

Let's be clear here ... there are many judges all across the country who are taking similar recusals. So, this is not one 'theocratic right-wing nutjob'. These judges are not doing the right thing. They are keeping citizens from the protection and service of the law. If the judge can not keep his personal opinion out of a legal decision (the blindfold on), he has no business wearing the robes.

This has nothing to do with *my* whims. The legislatures in many states have written parental notification laws. In these laws, they include a clause that allows the minor to petition the courts. Refusal to follow the law is a dereliction of duty.

Again, I say, refusal to preside over such a petition is the decision of an activist judge.

 

[michaeledward]

Oh, what the hell ... one more in sequence ... sorry.


I was searching for an ethics code for judges ... found this from the state of Oregon.

http://oah.state.or.us/coe.cfm

(C) An Administrative Law Judge shall not, in the performance of official duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice based upon sex, race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, age, or socioeconomic status.

You wanna bet that every state has a similar paragraph in their profession code of ethics.

 

[arnisador]

I think that a judge that prejudges like this is clearly in the wrong.

Could another judge there hear it? If he recuses himself so a more neutral judge can hear it, that's OK by me, though it'd be nice if his mind was more open.

 

[Marginal]

The judge is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t in the opinion of the liberal party line. On the one hand, if he recuses himself to avoid a conflict between the law and his faith, then he is a moral coward without convictions. And if he were to follow his convictions he would be labeled a theocratic right-wing nutjob.

The judge that refuses to do his job because he's a right wing nutball is a right wing nutball in either case. You're right.

 

[proud beginner]

An unwanted pregnancy (what may be a result of rape, incest, lack of education, etc.) is a tickle bomb in the belly of these young girls. Wasting time for unfusing it is being accomplice with the rapists.

Besides, it's always interesting to look at the political map of the USA and to wonder why there's such a correlation linking incest, uneducation and right-wing nutting. Uneducation may be the the key.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The state of Tennessee requires parental notification prior to a minor receiving an abortion. Like most intelligent laws on this matter, there was written into law a judicial bypass. A minor may seek petition the court to bypass the parental notification.

Well, it seems some public officials feel that they should be able to prevent that judicial bypass option. Trouble is, the public officials are the judges of Shelby County.

http://nytimes.com/2005/09/04/national/04recuse.html


Aren't officers of the court required to uphold the laws?

Sounds like a case for impeachment, don't you think?

If he were an activist judge, he wouldn't recuse himself, he would simply find a way to impose his own moral beliefs.

Instead, he stated that he could not in good concience hear these cases. He, in essence, said "I cannot be unbiased on this, so another judge should hear this case". I guess you don't like that answer?

Sounds like what the judge did was a fair thing, remove himself from cases he did not feel he could judge impartially. Furthermore, judges recuse themselves from cases all the time....cases involving former clients, friends, relatives, former co-workers. Any case that brings to doubt in the mind of the judge that he can't be impartial are thought impartial, it is his DUTY to recuse himself.

I suspect I wouldn't see a leftist activist judge do the same...he would simply allow the case to go forward and secretly insert his/her biases in to the final decision. Remember, the judge has the final say. He can make up whatever justification for reaching a decision if that's what he wants, even if that justification has nothing to do with why they REALLY made the decision.

Instead, this judge honestly said he felt he should recuse himself from these cases.

If judges didn't recuse themselves, you'd be very upset wouldn't you? How mad would you be to get a DWI and then have to sit before a judge who lost his entire family to a drunk driver? Wouldn't you feel he should recuse himself? I have no doubt. Does that make him a bad judge if he does? Hardly.

Many in the same position would just quietly insert your prejudices. Open minded? Hardly, just the appearance of it. I applaud the judges honesty.