Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aside from a very conservative and loud part of Christians, I don't think most people care what legal rights others have or what they do in their own bedrooms. A lot of folks who might not be comfortable with a Pride parade, for instance, won't have reservations about how people behave privately.
The affidavit of "personal bias" will have to show that there is a personal relationship between the judge and one or both of the parties, not that the judge has an overall bias against a class or kind of person.
The judge can say, "I don't like fathers having custody," and there is nothing that can be done about that.
The best a father could do is try to demonstrate that the mother is explicitly unfit, but even a judgment of "unfit" is up to the discretion of the court.
So wonder why Obama the Clintons were against it before they were for it?
Because people evolve over time, and don't have to stay locked into one position on an issue for their entire life.
You know, like how Trump used to be a registered Republican, then an Independent, then a Democrat, then an Independent, and then a Republican again. Of course most people don't keep switching positions, but the point still holds. People change over time.
The affidavit of "personal bias" will have to show that there is a personal relationship between the judge and one or both of the parties, not that the judge has an overall bias against a class or kind of person.
The judge can say, "I don't like fathers having custody," and there is nothing that can be done about that.
The best a father could do is try to demonstrate that the mother is explicitly unfit, but even a judgment of "unfit" is up to the discretion of the court.
I find that shocking and frankly disturbing. Are you sure?? Is there some documentation?
In Canada that wouldn't fly.
"Judges should perform their duties with diligence while treating everyone before the court with courtesy and equality, being careful to avoid stereotyping or discrimination. Judges should avoid comments, expressions, gestures or behaviour which may be interpreted as showing insensitivity or disrespect.
In making their decisions, judges must be and must appear to be impartial at all times. Judges must be mindful of how inappropriate comments, improper remarks or unjustified reprimands can undermine the appearance of impartiality and actively work to avoid them."
"All judges are expected to uphold a high standard of personal conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom. So, aside from the decision the judge reaches in your case, the judge must be impartial when hearing your case, be respectful and courteous throughout the proceedings, and maintain a high standard of integrity. For example, it is appropriate for members of the public to ask the Council to investigate complaints about judges who are thought to have shown biases based on race, gender, or religion. Complaints can arise from judges’ comments in the courtroom, from speeches or interviews given outside the courtroom."
So if your judge was in Canada, you could file a complaint since he is biased against your gender.
I find that shocking and frankly disturbing. Are you sure?? Is there some documentation?
In Canada that wouldn't fly.
"Judges should perform their duties with diligence while treating everyone before the court with courtesy and equality, being careful to avoid stereotyping or discrimination. Judges should avoid comments, expressions, gestures or behaviour which may be interpreted as showing insensitivity or disrespect.
In making their decisions, judges must be and must appear to be impartial at all times. Judges must be mindful of how inappropriate comments, improper remarks or unjustified reprimands can undermine the appearance of impartiality and actively work to avoid them."
"All judges are expected to uphold a high standard of personal conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom. So, aside from the decision the judge reaches in your case, the judge must be impartial when hearing your case, be respectful and courteous throughout the proceedings, and maintain a high standard of integrity. For example, it is appropriate for members of the public to ask the Council to investigate complaints about judges who are thought to have shown biases based on race, gender, or religion. Complaints can arise from judges’ comments in the courtroom, from speeches or interviews given outside the courtroom."
So if your judge was in Canada, you could file a complaint since he is biased against your gender.
There's no "council" in the US to complain to. You would have to take the case to a higher court...of more judges who like their judicial impunity.
But...in my particular case, there was eventually a new turn of events.
The state Supreme Court of that state did rule that a judge could no longer change custody willy-nilly at his own discretion unless the current custodial parent could be proven to be emotionally unfit. For instance, custody could not be changed simply because one parent earned more money and could "provide a better home." In that case, the wealthier non-custodial parent should simply be charged more child support.
But even then, that judgement was still an example that the courts can do whatever they want.
So you admit that you were wrong about gay marriage? Or have you as a conservative always been very supportive of that unlike most other conservatives?
What I'm saying is that in list of 100 important issues to most conservatives, this one just isn't that important. This is an issue that we may not have preferred but we can be tolerant of.
Do we have to be militant about every issue or can there be give and take?
It would be in most others Western countries, but the citizens of the US became really obedient, and tend to agree/suppress their feelings about many inconveniences or weird government rules imposed
on them.
Because outside of a small (and growing so) minority not many gave a toss about "gay marriage", which likely played a part in the SCOTUS decision.
High court often looks to what is going on in society at large when dealing with hot social issues. Is with famous "Loving vs. Virginia" decision that dealt with interracial marriage, many states had already given same sex couples right to marry. SCOTUS just brought the remaining laggards into the fold, dragging and screaming along the way.
It has been several years since the "gay marriage" decision; world has not come to an end, life carries on, sun still rises in the east.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
