• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

liberal legislating from the bench: CA judge denies foster teen early Marines enlistment

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
683
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: cumhail
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Rainsford
"Interpreting the law" has nothing to do with political position, conservative judges overstep their authority and ignore their obligations just as often as their liberal counterparts.
Prove it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Groody
One case from one judge proves what?
What does it prove? No more nor less than the article in the OP does, I'd imagine. I don't know exactly which "side" does it more often; but then again, odds are that you don't either. So I did the best some semi-anonymous guy in some tech site's forum could reasonably be expected to do: I responded to an example with an example.

That said, though, you should at least be willing to acknowledge that choosing as an example of "one judge" a then-US Court of Appeals judge who would go on to being the most recently appointed justice of the Supreme Court is at least as valid as that of a children's court commissioner in Los Angeles.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Wasn't FMJ created to make fun of war and how much it sucks?
Yeah, but we're talking about a 17 year old kid here. Personally I'm not entirely sure all 17 year olds can make reasonable judgments about something like joining the military, it's a serious decision being made by someone who is most likely still basically a kid.
He'll be 18 in only three months. Will he somehow become magically enlightened and a lot more knowledgeable and wise in only 3 months?
Try that argument in a stautatory rape case and see how far it gets you.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Rainsford
"Interpreting the law" has nothing to do with political position, conservative judges overstep their authority and ignore their obligations just as often as their liberal counterparts.
Prove it.
I can't, but then again, that was my point...you can't prove anything about the big picture of how judges behave, it's hard enough to tell who's legislating from the bench on an INDIVIDUAL case, trying to do a survey of every single case in the system (or even a big enough sample) would be virtually impossible. Yet that doesn't seem to stop folks like hellokeith (and you, I'm guessing) from making wild accusations about what liberal judges do, and then "proving" it by cherry picking a few cases out of thousands. If you weren't so partisan, your response might have been good for the OP...but I knew it would take a perceived attack on conservative judges for any of you guys to really THINK about the question, so I said what I did. And joy for me, it worked :D
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Wasn't FMJ created to make fun of war and how much it sucks?
Yeah, but we're talking about a 17 year old kid here. Personally I'm not entirely sure all 17 year olds can make reasonable judgments about something like joining the military, it's a serious decision being made by someone who is most likely still basically a kid.
I joined the Army Reserves at 17, with parental consent, and it turned out to be one of the best decisions of my life. I even went to Basic Training in the summer between my junior and senior years, and came back a better man for it.

Just sayin'...
Well you know what they say about a broken clock being right at least twice a day ;)

Seriously though, I'm glad you had that opportunity and that it turned out well, but how much of that was you being wise and having good judgement at 17 and how much of it was luck and fate? I'm not saying joining the armed forces as someone barely done being a kid is always a bad idea, but it might be, and your average 17 year old probably isn't very well equipped to make that judgement. That's why parental consent is required.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
No, but he can wait 3 months instead of wasting everyone's time/money for his impatience.
Marines use delayed enlistment to enable new recruits to train prior to going to basic training. Once they enlist, they can use the training facilities at recruiting centers for free. Without this, the kid will probably wash out in the first week of training. Even with it, many still don't make the cut.

Also, marine recruiters do not volunteer for their position as recruiters. Every marine who has been in for a certain amount of time (7 years?) has to serve a specified amount of time as a recruiter.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: sandorski
No, but he can wait 3 months instead of wasting everyone's time/money for his impatience.
Marines use delayed enlistment to enable new recruits to train prior to going to basic training. Once they enlist, they can use the training facilities at recruiting centers for free. Without this, the kid will probably wash out in the first week of training. Even with it, many still don't make the cut.

Also, marine recruiters do not volunteer for their position as recruiters. Every marine who has been in for a certain amount of time (7 years?) has to serve a specified amount of time as a recruiter.
That's not true. Recruiting duty is duty you select. There could be some cases where the only billets available are going to send you to recruiting duty, but that is certainly the exception instead of the rule.

Anyways, I see plenty of good reasons for a judge to deny someone's request to enter a service that might get them killed when they list a kickass movie they saw as a big reason for wanting to join. I think if any parent were to sign off on him joining based on reasoning like that it would be extremely irresponsible of them as well. He can join on his own in a few months.

Did anyone notice that hellokeith frequently makes threads like this with obviously trolling titles and then just disappears?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,808
1,125
126
Originally posted by: hellokeith

This is exactly why we need conservative judges who interpret the law instead of liberal judges who legislate from the bench.
A common misperception and oversimplification.

This was a juvenile law case, the basic standard of law the court must apply is what decision is in the best interests of the child. Here you have a 17 y.o., all excited by a Hollywood movie he saw, who wants to go to war. I think the court acted properly (and it certainly is within the realm of reasonable judgment) to deny the application for early enlistment. Frankly, I personally don't see how it is the best interests of this child to go to war early. If he is still bound and determined to join the Marines, he can do so as an adult in a few months.

BTW, there is no (public) transcript because this is a juvenile hearing. There is a transcript made for appeal purposes.

I have grave doubts that the recruiter was present during the decision, it would be very unusual. To me the person with the political agenda trying to distort the law here is the recruiter.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Judge made a correct decision. Recruiters should stay away from minors.
the law states minors over 16 can join the military with parental consent. if you're an emancipated minor it doesnt matter.

many 17 yos have joined. that precedent should have forced the judge to rule in favor of the kid. he included personal agenda and non-judicial properties in his decision...he went above the law.

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Judge made a correct decision. Recruiters should stay away from minors.
the law states minors over 16 can join the military with parental consent. if you're an emancipated minor it doesnt matter.

many 17 yos have joined. that precedent should have forced the judge to rule in favor of the kid. he included personal agenda and non-judicial properties in his decision...he went above the law.
Wrong. When there is a decision to be made about foster children, the judge has to side on the side of caution. If legislature wants to make it possible for a foster kid to join the military without judicial consent, they can do so, but if they leave it up to the judge, they should not expect him to just rubber stamp whatever the kid decides.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,353
1
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
That's not true. Recruiting duty is duty you select. There could be some cases where the only billets available are going to send you to recruiting duty, but that is certainly the exception instead of the rule.
This is how it was in 1995 when my brother enlisted, at least according to his recruiter. I doubt it's changed.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Judge made a correct decision. Recruiters should stay away from minors.
the law states minors over 16 can join the military with parental consent. if you're an emancipated minor it doesnt matter.

many 17 yos have joined. that precedent should have forced the judge to rule in favor of the kid. he included personal agenda and non-judicial properties in his decision...he went above the law.
Really, Mr. Ignorant? Why don't you quote to us, then, exactly what the law is that the judge was enforcing? What exactly were the factors he was supposed to use?
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Judge made a correct decision. Recruiters should stay away from minors.
the law states minors over 16 can join the military with parental consent. if you're an emancipated minor it doesnt matter.

many 17 yos have joined. that precedent should have forced the judge to rule in favor of the kid. he included personal agenda and non-judicial properties in his decision...he went above the law.
Wrong. When there is a decision to be made about foster children, the judge has to side on the side of caution. If legislature wants to make it possible for a foster kid to join the military without judicial consent, they can do so, but if they leave it up to the judge, they should not expect him to just rubber stamp whatever the kid decides.
so the issue lies in the fact that he's a foster child?

plenty of 16 year olds have joined...why cant this kid?
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Judge made a correct decision. Recruiters should stay away from minors.
the law states minors over 16 can join the military with parental consent. if you're an emancipated minor it doesnt matter.

many 17 yos have joined. that precedent should have forced the judge to rule in favor of the kid. he included personal agenda and non-judicial properties in his decision...he went above the law.
Really, Mr. Ignorant? Why don't you quote to us, then, exactly what the law is that the judge was enforcing? What exactly were the factors he was supposed to use?
mr. ignorant?

the judge includes PERSONAL AGENDA and IRRELEVANT OPINION in his DECISION.

do you want me to count out the syllables? im going STRICTLY by the LAW. youre including emotion and opinion in your view of this situation. i dont believe the kid should join the military at such a young age, but he has the right to do so and the judge rejected overwhelming precedent in favor of partisan/personal/irrelevant information.

 
Dec 10, 2005
20,736
2,134
126
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Judge made a correct decision. Recruiters should stay away from minors.
the law states minors over 16 can join the military with parental consent. if you're an emancipated minor it doesnt matter.

many 17 yos have joined. that precedent should have forced the judge to rule in favor of the kid. he included personal agenda and non-judicial properties in his decision...he went above the law.
Wrong. When there is a decision to be made about foster children, the judge has to side on the side of caution. If legislature wants to make it possible for a foster kid to join the military without judicial consent, they can do so, but if they leave it up to the judge, they should not expect him to just rubber stamp whatever the kid decides.
so the issue lies in the fact that he's a foster child?

plenty of 16 year olds have joined...why cant this kid?
They can join with parental permission. So if a real parent said no, the kid would have to suck it up and deal with it. In the case of the foster child, his parental guardian (the judge) who determines what his best interests are until he is the age of majority, said No. He could have probably been able to join if he didn't cite his main reason for joining as "watching Full Metal Jacket"
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Judge made a correct decision. Recruiters should stay away from minors.
the law states minors over 16 can join the military with parental consent. if you're an emancipated minor it doesnt matter.

many 17 yos have joined. that precedent should have forced the judge to rule in favor of the kid. he included personal agenda and non-judicial properties in his decision...he went above the law.
Really, Mr. Ignorant? Why don't you quote to us, then, exactly what the law is that the judge was enforcing? What exactly were the factors he was supposed to use?
mr. ignorant?

the judge includes PERSONAL AGENDA and IRRELEVANT OPINION in his DECISION.

do you want me to count out the syllables? im going STRICTLY by the LAW. youre including emotion and opinion in your view of this situation. i dont believe the kid should join the military at such a young age, but he has the right to do so and the judge rejected overwhelming precedent in favor of partisan/personal/irrelevant information.
You don't know what you're talking about and you don't understand what precedent is in a legal sense. Different judges giving approval for different kids to sign up for the military is in no way binding upon this judge in this case.

I bet you have never read the LAW that you are going so STRICTLY by. If you had, I'm willing to bet it gives the judge wide discretion as to whether or not he or she will approve the minor's entry.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
The reason for setting a minimum age for enlistment is to have some chance that enlistees have the chance to make reasonably well thought out decisions about committing themselves to several years of living through immediate threats to their own lives and the maturity to be able to perform and to support their fellow troops under the duress of combat.

The law says that age is 18. This kid isn't that old, yet, and upholding the letter of the law, as written, isn't a "liberal" or "activist" decision. In fact, it's as "conservative" as it gets.

We don't need a bunch of immature juveniles volunteering to sacrafice their bodies like jihadist suicide bombers. We have predator drones for that.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
The reason for setting a minimum age for enlistment is to have some chance that enlistees have the chance to make reasonably well thought out decisions about committing themselves to several years of living through immediate threats to their own lives and the maturity to be able to perform and to support their fellow troops under the duress of combat.

The law says that age is 18. [This kid isn't that old, yet, and upholding the letter of the law, as written, isn't a "liberal" or "activist" decision. In fact, it's as "conservative" as it gets.

We don't need a bunch of immature juveniles volunteering to sacrafice their bodies like jihadist suicide bombers. We have predator drones for that.
sorry bro, but that's not accurate. The legal age to join the service is actually 17, and has been for a quite some time.

In 1991, I myself joined the Army Reserves at 17, and went to US Army Basic Training (Army Boot Camp) in the summer between 11th and 12th grade.

Just an FYI...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Judge made a correct decision. Recruiters should stay away from minors.
the law states minors over 16 can join the military with parental consent. if you're an emancipated minor it doesnt matter.

many 17 yos have joined. that precedent should have forced the judge to rule in favor of the kid. he included personal agenda and non-judicial properties in his decision...he went above the law.
Really, Mr. Ignorant? Why don't you quote to us, then, exactly what the law is that the judge was enforcing? What exactly were the factors he was supposed to use?
mr. ignorant?

the judge includes PERSONAL AGENDA and IRRELEVANT OPINION in his DECISION.

do you want me to count out the syllables? im going STRICTLY by the LAW. youre including emotion and opinion in your view of this situation. i dont believe the kid should join the military at such a young age, but he has the right to do so and the judge rejected overwhelming precedent in favor of partisan/personal/irrelevant information.
You said you are going by the law. I asked you to quote the law the judge is enforcing. You did not quote a word of the law, but repeated that you are following the law.

No, you're not.

You can't even say what the law is that you're posting about, claiming you are following.

Why don't you quote to us, then, exactly what the law is that the judge was enforcing? What exactly were the factors he was supposed to use?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Children's Court Commissioner Marilyn Mackel reportedly told Sage and a recruiter that she didn't approve of the Iraq war, didn't trust recruiters and didn't support the military.
There are several good arguments posted here about why it may be good idea for the student to enlist, or why it is NOT a good idea. But apparently none of these were used by the judge.

See the above quote regarding the judge's remarks. The student is not allowed to join, not for any reason that has to do with his interests, but because the judge HERSELF doesn't like the military etc.

She's using the student as a club to whack the military, in a sense.

IMO, that's a piss poor reason for a judge to use as a basis for such a decision - I (very big "I" capital letter here) don't like the military, the war etc. I would argue the same if the judge allowed him to join because she DID like the war. That simply is not relevant to the case at hand.

The decision should be based upon the bests interests of the student, not a judge's highly personal likes or dislikes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the student.

BTW: Right at the begining of the article they note that the student had a long standing desire to be in the miliary. Contrary to many posters here, the movie FMJ was not the cause of that desire, he had only recently seen it.

I think the judge's admission as to the reason for her decision clearly establishes this as an example of judicial activism. It is not , howver, legislating from the bench, it's practicing activism.

Fortunely, it is a relatively inconsequential example with no long lasting effects nor does it set precidence.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Children's Court Commissioner Marilyn Mackel reportedly told Sage and a recruiter that she didn't approve of the Iraq war, didn't trust recruiters and didn't support the military.
There are several good arguments posted here about why it may be good idea for the student to enlist, or why it is NOT a good idea. But apparently none of these were used by the judge.

See the above quote regarding the judge's remarks. The student is not allowed to join, not for any reason that has to do with his interests, but because the judge HERSELF doesn't like the military etc.

She's using the student as a club to whack the military, in a sense.

IMO, that's a piss poor reason for a judge to use as a basis for such a decision - I (very big "I" capital letter here) don't like the military, the war etc. I would argue the same if the judge allowed him to join because she DID like the war. That simply is not relevant to the case at hand.

The decision should be based upon the bests interests of the student, not a judge's highly personal likes or dislikes that have nothing whatsoever to do with the student.

BTW: Right at the begining of the article they note that the student had a long standing desire to be in the miliary. Contrary to many posters here, the movie FMJ was not the cause of that desire, he had only recently seen it.

I think the judge's admission as to the reason for her decision clearly establishes this as an example of judicial activism. It is not , howver, legislating from the bench, it's practicing activism.

Fortunely, it is a relatively inconsequential example with no long lasting effects nor does it set precidence.

Fern
How do we know this? We have no idea what reasons were used by the judge to make her decision, the reasons aren't listed. All we know is that she didn't like the Iraq war. As Rainsford said earlier nobody has any idea, they are just sounding off based on their partisan stance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY