What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Can SSM still go through? Then it's a nothingburger for me. Just throwing scraps of red meat to the dogs. Let the morons gnash their teeth and rend their garments.

As long as the law is upheld, I don't care if they have a picture of a dick on the form.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Can SSM still go through? Then it's a nothingburger for me. Just throwing scraps of red meat to the dogs. Let the morons gnash their teeth and rend their garments.

As long as the law is upheld, I don't care if they have a picture of a dick on the form.
Click to expand...

Not to quibble, but what law? The opinion of the court was that there can be no law regarding the sex of the spouses.

The KY decision is a compromise where both parties gwt what they want.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Kepler said:
Today in derp.
Click to expand...

Never mind that the kid is covered in bruises and is malnourished. Not saying the child is, but one sided stories need both sides before an intelligent conclusion can be made.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

This one will head to the Supremes as a 1st Amendment Question.

Is something I said that is offensive to you protected speech?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Never mind that the kid is covered in bruises and is malnourished. Not saying the child is, but one sided stories need both sides before an intelligent conclusion can be made.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, you would disagree with what the judge did if he did it because they're homosexual...right?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

GrinCDXX said:
Just to be clear, you would disagree with what the judge did if he did it because they're homosexual...right?
Click to expand...

Yes. He can't do that if the sole basis is the sexuality of the parents. There has to be some proof (not opinion) that the Mom and Mom are unfit parents.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Yes. He can't do that if the sole basis is the sexuality of the parents. There has to be some proof (not opinion) that the Mom and Mom are unfit parents.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Never mind that the kid is covered in bruises and is malnourished. Not saying the child is, but one sided stories need both sides before an intelligent conclusion can be made.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the fact the state dept of child services and the birth mother are concerned about removing the child from it's home is a pretty good idea here. But very sweet of you to put that idea out there.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Never mind that the kid is covered in bruises and is malnourished. Not saying the child is, but one sided stories need both sides before an intelligent conclusion can be made.
Click to expand...
Source? Or are you just speculating wildly and demanding that someone prove the opposite?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Yes. He can't do that if the sole basis is the sexuality of the parents. There has to be some proof (not opinion) that the Mom and Mom are unfit parents.
Click to expand...

You mispelled "any." He can't do it if he uses the sexuality of the parents as any basis.

That's all done now. We've grown up.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Yes. He can't do that if the sole basis is the sexuality of the parents. There has to be some proof (not opinion) that the Mom and Mom are unfit parents.
Click to expand...

Kepler said:
You mispelled "any." He can't do it if he uses the sexuality of the parents as any basis.

That's all done now. We've grown up.
Click to expand...

Kep's right. If the judge stated on the record that studies showed children raised by same sex couples do not fare as well as children raised by heteros, his decision will be reversed. Slam dunk. And he'll probably get a letter from the chief judge in his district. As well he should.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

unofan said:
Then what are you saying, because that first sentence reads as though that is exactly what you're saying.
Click to expand...

One sided articles that tend to make the other side look in the worse way possible. We have (a) the child is no longer living with Mom and Mom and (b) the "parents" say that the child was removed because of their sexual orientation. Anyone see the removal order? Until all the facts are out there, judgment is reserved. I threw that little snide remark out there as a counterpoint.

HOWEVER, if the sexual orientation is the sole reason, then the judge is wrong, based on my (limited) understanding of Utah adoption laws.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
One sided articles that tend to make the other side look in the worse way possible. We have (a) the child is no longer living with Mom and Mom and (b) the "parents" say that the child was removed because of their sexual orientation. Anyone see the removal order? Until all the facts are out there, judgment is reserved. I threw that little snide remark out there as a counterpoint.

HOWEVER, if the sexual orientation is the sole reason, then the judge is wrong, based on my (limited) understanding of Utah adoption laws.
Click to expand...

In this instance, it's the state Child Protective Services who is saying the judge only did it because of TEH GAY.

The two women, April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce, were in court for a routine hearing Tuesday when 7th District Juvenile Judge Scott Johansen announced he was ordering that the 1-year-old girl they have been caring for over the past three months be removed from their home within a week, DCFS director Brent Platt said Wednesday.

According to the judge, the child would be better off with a heterosexual couple.

"That's what is so unique about this situation. There weren't any concerns about the family and no concerns about the placement, it sounds like he has concerns overall with same-sex couples being foster parents," Platt said.

Johansen has not specified what specific concerns he has about same-sex couples caring for foster children or what research he was referring to during the hearing, Platt said.

The Code of Judicial Conduct precludes judges and court staff from commenting on pending cases, according to a Utah State Courts spokeswoman who confirmed the nature of Johansen's order.

Same-sex couples have been eligible to serve as foster parents in Utah since October of 2014 when the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling to overturn the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Platt estimates there are about 20 same-sex couples currently caring for foster children in Utah, and this is the first time a judge has expressed any opposition.

Peirce announced the judge's decision on Facebook Tuesday, writing: "Today Judge Scott Johansen ordered our foster child be moved due to our sexual orientation! How is this OK?"

Attempts to reach the couple for comment Wednesday were unsuccessful.

Hoagland and Peirce have met every DCFS requirement to become licensed foster parents, including routine reviews with the division while they have been caring for the child, according to Platt. If the girl would have become eligible for adoption and the couple had expressed interest in taking her, the division intended to support them, he noted.

"It's my understanding they have a couple of older children, these are experienced parents," Platt said. "As far as we're concerned, it was an appropriate placement. It was a placement that worked for the kid and worked for the family, so we were surprised the judge issued that order."

DCFS has yet to receive a written copy of Johansen's order, Platt said. Once it does, the agency will evaluate whether there are any options to dispute it.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
Then Post #393 is correct. Anyone seen a copy of the order?
Click to expand...

The order is not available yet (I guess it will be when the Child Protection people receive it.) This article says a court spokesman confirmed its contents, and leads one to believe the contents cite supposed research that "children do better in heterosexual homes."

In general, the judge seems like a sweetheart.

In 1997, he was reprimanded by the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission for "demeaning the judicial office" after slapping a 16-year-old boy who became belligerent during a 1995 meeting at the Price courthouse.

Johansen was also criticized in 2014 for ordering a woman to lop off her 13-year-old daughter's ponytail as punishment for the teen cutting the hair off a 3-year-old girl at a restaurant. The judge offered to shave off 150 hours of community service from the sentence if she cut her daughter's hair in court.
Click to expand...

This may be the study that is at the root of the derp. It's been debunked, but somehow I don't think that made it into the Echo Chamber the way the initial study did.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

So, the Judge doesn't get that his morality is irrelevant to the process? If he can't do his job then he shouldn't be in his job.
 
joecct said:
One sided articles that tend to make the other side look in the worse way possible. We have (a) the child is no longer living with Mom and Mom and (b) the "parents" say that the child was removed because of their sexual orientation. Anyone see the removal order? Until all the facts are out there, judgment is reserved. I threw that little snide remark out there as a counterpoint.

HOWEVER, if the sexual orientation is the sole reason, then the judge is wrong, based on my (limited) understanding of Utah adoption laws.
Click to expand...

You misspelled 'any' as 'sole' again.

Discrimination need only be a motivating factor, not the 'but-for' cause, to be illegal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top