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

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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...
Thanks for the info. I stand corrected if that's the case, but if the minimum age is 17, what's the legal basis that puts this matter before any court?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
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
I give you credit for at least trying to note the difference in 'judicial activism' and 'legislating from the bench'.

But it's entirely reasonable for a judge acting in the best interests of a child to say it's not in the best interests of the child to go to war, IMO, even if the child wants to.

However, the issue is highly exploitable by the right-wing for politics, to try to score points about 'anti-military' and 'judicial activism', as the Republican legislator is doing.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,110
3,155
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
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.
Ya, "reportedly" and the accusation made by the recruiter and the kid in question. Uh, ok, must be Hellokeith trying to get in or reasonable(?) facsimile. Likely just a rumour they heard and are now passing on as if it had any bearing on their case.

If the kid had a Parent(s), they could refuse for any reason they wanted. Too bad kid, thems the breaks.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
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.
Re-read the peice.
In denying the Royal High School student delayed entry into the Marine Corps, 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.
The author of the article is undoubtedly telling us she ruled against Sage (the student) listing her dislike of the military, the war and recruiters as the reason.

Maybe the author got it wrong. Maybe Sage misunderstood her.

But IMO, there's no getting around the fact that HER personal likes and dislikes have no relevance.

She should NOT have even interjected those personal likes/dislikes into the case in the first place.

But does look to me like she based her decision upon those. No other reeson to even mention them.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
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.
Re-read the peice.
In denying the Royal High School student delayed entry into the Marine Corps, 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.
The author of the article is undoubtedly telling us she ruled against Sage (the student) listing her dislike of the military, the war and recruiters as the reason.

Maybe the author got it wrong. Maybe Sage misunderstood her.

But IMO, there's no getting around the fact that HER personal likes and dislikes have no relevance.

She should NOT have even interjected those personal likes/dislikes into the case in the first place.

But does look to me like she based her decision upon those. No other reeson to even mention them.

Fern
No, that tells us a few of the reasons that she gave to some other people in the course of a conversation and in no way tells us that those were all of the reasons or even the primary reason that she denied it, and since the records are sealed it's not possible to know what her written opinion stated. (I'm betting you it was much, much different then "I don't like the military")

Her personal likes and dislikes are directly relevant. She's being tasked with making a subjective judgement on a child's welfare. What else could she possibly go on then what she believes is a good or bad thing?

Anyways though, no. We don't know what her reasons really were, and we can't know. To say that we do from the information given in that article is a pretty poor idea.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
I give you credit for at least trying to note the difference in 'judicial activism' and 'legislating from the bench'.
Thanks

But it's entirely reasonable for a judge acting in the best interests of a child to say it's not in the best interests of the child to go to war, IMO, even if the child wants to.
I have zero complaint against a judge that says "no" because it's not in a 17 yrs "best interest". I can easily understand that too. War is dangerous (I won't comment on the likleyhood he actually end up there. WANTING to be a sniper, and actually passing all the courses successfully are two entirely different things. For all we now, he may have end up in a completely different job, like a cook.

But as I feebly attempted intially, lets turn this around - I can NOT approve of a judge who DOES send the 17 yr old to war because it's one the judge DOES approve of. Again, the basis for the decision should be whatever is in the kid's best interest.


However, the issue is highly exploitable by the right-wing for politics, to try to score points about 'anti-military' and 'judicial activism', as the Republican legislator is doing.
The judge has brought this upon herself. If she was considering the kids "best interests" (1) that should have ben clear by her, and (2) by interjecting HER personal likes/dislikes she is to blame for any misunderstanding. Those personal views of her had NO place being mentioned in the case.
See bold

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, that tells us a few of the reasons that she gave to some other people in the course of a conversation and in no way tells us that those were all of the reasons or even the primary reason that she denied it, and since the records are sealed it's not possible to know what her written opinion stated. (I'm betting you it was much, much different then "I don't like the military")

Her personal likes and dislikes are directly relevant. No, they are not. Whether or not she approves of the reason for the "war", war is still dangerous. Is the kid mature enough? That's a relevant question, not the judge's personal approval, or lack therof, of any war. It has no bearing whatsoever of the kids's "best interest. She's being tasked with making a subjective judgement on a child's welfare. What else could she possibly go on then what she believes is a good or bad thing?
I'd suggest she consider whether the kid was mature enough to make a decision for himself. Or, whether if given 3 more months he may have decided to pursue additional education etc.

Anyways though, no. We don't know what her reasons really were, and we can't know. To say that we do from the information given in that article is a pretty poor idea.
We're hearing from Sage's side. That's legit. I would welcome hearing from the judge too. But like in court, if she doesn't wanna show up for her side of the argument, she loses.

And note, I'm NOT arguing that this was case proves any kind of "judicial activism" epidemic.


Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, that tells us a few of the reasons that she gave to some other people in the course of a conversation and in no way tells us that those were all of the reasons or even the primary reason that she denied it, and since the records are sealed it's not possible to know what her written opinion stated. (I'm betting you it was much, much different then "I don't like the military")

Her personal likes and dislikes are directly relevant. No, they are not. Whether or not she approves of the reason for the "war", war is still dangerous. Is the kid mature enough? That's a relevant question, not the judge's personal approval, or lack therof, of any war. It has no bearing whatsoever of the kids's "best interest. She's being tasked with making a subjective judgement on a child's welfare. What else could she possibly go on then what she believes is a good or bad thing?
I'd suggest she consider whether the kid was mature enough to make a decision for himself. Or, whether if given 3 more months he may have decided to pursue additional education etc.

Anyways though, no. We don't know what her reasons really were, and we can't know. To say that we do from the information given in that article is a pretty poor idea.
We're hearing from Sage's side. That's legit. I would welcome hearing from the judge too. But like in court, if she doesn't wanna show up for her side of the argument, she loses.

And note, I'm NOT arguing that this was case proves any kind of "judicial activism" epidemic.


Fern


How do you determine what is in someone's best interest? A healthy dose of what you like and dislike I'd bet. Sure there are plenty of other things as well, but decisions are necessarily colored by what someone believes is good and bad.

And no, she doesn't lose if she doesn't show up. If she were to go public with all of her reasons for why she ruled the way she did it would be spectacularly unethical and could even open her up to legal liability. The records for that case are sealed, she's not allowed to discuss them.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
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.
Wonders what is preventing you from enlisting?

Surely it is not a court issue of age vs. enlistment date as is the case with this seemingly braver than you, 17 year old boy.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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...
Thanks for the info. I stand corrected if that's the case, but if the minimum age is 17, what's the legal basis that puts this matter before any court?
I think he was a ward of the state - a foster child between homes - so the court (judge) acts as his legal guardian... ?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
That is exactly right. The law asked the judge to make that decision based on what she believes is in the best interest of the child. That is by its nature a subjective decision, so don't be shocked and awed if judge's own biases and opinions come into that decision. Don't want that, don't leave these decisions up to the judge.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
How do you determine what is in someone's best interest? A healthy dose of what you like and dislike I'd bet.
We're dancing around each other a bit here.

If she doesn't approve of him going to war. Period - any war, I see the point.

The way it's phrased is that she doesn't approve of the Iraq war. As if it were a war she DID approve of, it would be OK for him to go.

I have no problem whatsoever if a judge doesn't approve of a 17 yr old going to ANY war.

My problem is it seems it's only OK if she approves of the particular war in question.

The reasons behind a war, and whether they were valid or not, have no effect as to whether a war is safer or more dangerous.

And how I determine if something is in someone's best interest, like my son for example, is to consider what effects or long-term benefits or risks they will be subject too etc. I don't like soccor, but I allow and support his choice to play it. I do not forbid him soccor because I don't like it.

If when older he wants to go off to war, you can bet that really low on the list of considerations will be my judgement as to whether it is justified war or not. If killed in a justified war you are just as dead as being killed in a unjustifed one.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY