By Teri O'Brien -
Traditionally, we have revered the idea that Justice is blind, applied neutrally to everyone who seeks it, by wise, temperate judges, bound by judicial precedent and by statutes passed by duly-elected legislators. By those standards, the personal desires or situations of judges who apply the law should be completely irrelevant, and should have no impact on their decisions.
The good people of California, through their elected representatives, apparently have decided that the notion of judges impartially applying laws is as quaint and antiquated as the stupid, archaic U.S. Constitution that keeps Barack Obama from remaking America as quickly as he would like.
…California judges are being asked to reveal their sexual identities in the name of diversity.
The Judicial Applicant and Appointment Demographics Inclusion Act, which took effect Jan. 1, requires the state to ask its 1,600 judges whether they are homosexual. The goal is to “promote and increase the representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the state’s judicial branch,” according to Equality California, which pushed for the bill.
"The Judicial Applicant and Appointment Demographics Inclusion Act?" Seriously, this is what the California legislature is spending its time on? Gee, I can't imagine why the state is bankrupt.
Aristotle said that "the law is reason free from passion." The California legislature says judges are nothing more than stooges for various identity politics groups who will rule based on what's best for the group they represent.
Forty percent of the judges refused to respond to the legally-mandated survey. But of those who did "57.7 percent said they were heterosexual, 1.1 percent said they were lesbian, 1.0 percent said they were gay men and 0.06 percent identified as transgender. That percentage represents one judge in Alameda County who is openly transgender."
Oh I don't like this. Obviously, they don't have enough homosexual judges. I suppose Gov. Moonbeam could appoint some of those dancing boys they have on the endless supply of award shows they inflict on network television viewers, but before resorting to anything that drastic, shouldn't they demand that the silent 40% be hauled before some sort of state board to report their sexual orientation? It's only a matter of time before that is deemed necessary. Another problem here is that the categories being tracked are too limited. Lesbian? Gay? Transgender. Fine. How many judges like to do it doggy style? How many are toe suckers? How can a California toe sucker expect to get justice from a judge who considers that behavior deviant? I think it's back to the drawing board for the bunch in Sacramento.
Is it possible to get a gigantic chain saw and send this goofball state floating out to sea? I'd be more willing to invest in that than in Obama's crony capitalist "green energy" boondoggles. Of course, I'm under no illusions. I'm sure that if any democrats down in Springfield are reading this piece, they are thinking "The Judicial Applicant and Appointment Demographics Inclusion Act.. Why didn't I think of that?"