I am confused. I thought judges were elected officials, hired by, accountable to and paid by taxpayers. Yet the California Supreme Court advisory board has unanimously banned all state judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts of America.
The advisory board is concerned about public perception if the lower judges belong to this youth group. What perception are they giving by trying to control the judges’ private lives? Where did they obtain this dictatorial power? They considered other states’ ban on memberships. (None of which were youth groups.) A precedent of dictators didn’t sway the founders of this country when our liberties were spelled out in our Constitution.
Banning an individual from any organization will not change the way a person thinks. It merely deprives him of liberty and freedom.
If any judge is not performing his or her job properly, they should be dealt with legally. Otherwise, it should be hands off of their private lives. When I vote for a judge, I don’t think I am controlling his or her life. Isn’t there something that can be done to stop this injustice? A bad precedent is no excuse.
Never miss a local story.