Just curious... Does anything in this article cause anyone here to be outraged?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
So I guess this judge is OK with you, Lincoln, because his sentiments are similar to, if not identical, to yours? What happens if a judge's sentiments are not in line with your views? Would you then be like some others on this thread, questioning the judge's ability to render an unbiased judgement?

One person's activist judge is another person's unbiased member of the judiciary, it seems.

Gatekeeper

I don't even know this judge but he should not be labeled because he asks obvious questions that no one seems to want to answer. Does the fetus feel pain when his arms and legs are being ripped off? Yes__ No__

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
A judge who cannot be professionally objective with his job should be held in contempt of court.

The judge is the court, or at least, the embodiment of it. Therefore, no contempt.

[Lincoln]

I didn't think of that retort, Mike. Yeah! what he said Mr Fun. Judges don't often ask direct questions but they are entitled to if they think that the revelant questions were not asked by either side. After all, the justice system is supposed to be concerned with the truth. I realize that is a foreign concept now but anyway...

[Frankychan]

Psh, this has to be the biggest conflict-of-interest example I have seen yet!


What I'm saying is why in the world are we letting male policy makers make all the decisions when they don't even have the biological body parts to give birth in the first place? Should there be some women there to make a case?

I agree with MrFun, this judge needs to get his head out of his butt and do some OBJECTIVE decision making. Not this right-wing conservative BS.

[Lincoln]

He hasn't made a decision yet. Give the man a break. I know he is probably a white male but maybe he is really not the scum of the earth.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Lincoln


Well I worked with teenage kids for about 20 years and I supported a womens shelter for a number of years and worked with ex-cons etc. but this issue (which I have never been actively involved with except on posts here) seems to be a dividing line for me because it exposes the hypocrisy of people who claim to care as they continue to remain silent while kids just seconds or inches from birth are brutally dismembered.

Well that's a great start Linc, I'm proud of you. But maybe you shouldn't always be so concerned with always exposing the hypocrisy of your ideological opponents. It might not be a bad idea to spend even a fraction of that time analyzing your own beliefs. Who knows? It may be possible that you are hypocritical about a few things as well. Just try to apply even a percentage of energy that you have expended on negative things instead on positive things. You know what I am talking about. You should never underestimate the amount of good that just one person can do

But don't worry, you didn't listen to me last time and I don't think that you will listen to me this time. I have high hopes for next time though. Until then, good luck!

[Lincoln]

Well thanks for hoping.

[Adam Smith]

Before everybody gets their knickers in a twist, I would like to know whether this is a bench case or a jury case. My guess is its the former. I'm not an attorney, but IIRC, if the judge is making the decision, he or she has the right to ask sometimes pointed questions. (I did not see anything in the article about objections from plaintiffs attorneys, which one would certainly expect if there was obvious bias.) Fruthermore, the problem with giving people more information about a medical procedure they are about to undergo is .... what?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln


I don't even know this judge but he should not be labeled because he asks obvious questions that no one seems to want to answer. Does the fetus feel pain when his arms and legs are being ripped off? Yes__ No__

My problem (or possible problem) with the questions goes to relevance. The court isn't the place to advocate the morality of the procedure, or whether abortion should be allowed at all, or under what circumstances.

If the fetus at this stage is a legally recognized person (i.e. third trimester or earlier viability), then the question of pain and fetal response is completely relevant. That would be part and parcel of the balancing of rights issues between mother and fetus, assuming that the procedure is medically necessary to protect the mother and that there are no alternative procedures of similar or greater efficacy. Both of those issues are questions of fact, but may not apply in this case - I simply don't know the exact wording of the law and haven't read the case filings.

If you're talking in a general sense, fetal pain may not be relevant. Animals obviously feel pain when they're killed in a slaughterhouse (traumatic death is painful, period), but does that have any legal relevance? We don't recognize animals as having particular rights, although we outlaw wanton cruelty towards them, at least by some definition.

The law being challenged only bars a specific procedure, it doesn't bar all abortions at that stage of development, so that's where I question the relevance - if it's permissible to use other procedures to abort a fetus under similar medical and developmental circumstances, then we're clearly not dealing with a legal recognition of fetuses as having specific rights. That gives me the impression that the questions are not legally relevant, and you get into the issue of whether the probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial value of the testimony. It could create a distinct basis for appeal.

If you're dealing with a general issue of fetal rights and recognition of legal status, then feelings of pain and pain response are not only relevant, they go to the core of the issue.

Wrt objectivity and recusal, I disagree with the lefties. Nobody is "objective" about something like the Green River killer, 9-11, or many other issues. Humans aren't objective creatures. The question isn't whether the judge has strong opinions on the issue, it's whether he can apply the law objectively, and merely asking harsh, pointed questions of a witness doesn't tell me he can't apply the law objectively.

[Lincoln]

Well said. I think that objectivity is a rather evasive for most of us. That is why court stacking has always been an American tradition.

[monkspider]

Hey!

-----

[Nubclear]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Seeker]

For the umpteenth time, the fetus is NOT a 'baby'. It's not a sentient human being at this time of pregnancy.

It's a mass of organic tissue.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Just answer it with a "Yes" or "No", MTG