StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
True, normally it's the republicans. Booyah!Originally posted by: Pabster
Liberals legislating from the bench. Now that's news! :laugh:
True, normally it's the republicans. Booyah!Originally posted by: Pabster
Liberals legislating from the bench. Now that's news! :laugh:
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?
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?
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.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
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.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.
Just sayin'...
LOL! ouch! That one left a mark...Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well you know what they say about a broken clock being right at least twice a day
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.Originally posted by: sandorski
No, but he can wait 3 months instead of wasting everyone's time/money for his impatience.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.Originally posted by: sandorski
No, but he can wait 3 months instead of wasting everyone's time/money for his impatience.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Judge made a correct decision. Recruiters should stay away from minors.
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.
This is how it was in 1995 when my brother enlisted, at least according to his recruiter. I doubt it's changed.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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
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