Author Topic: Judicial Excess?  (Read 3145 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Judicial Excess?
« on: March 08, 2008, 09:59:03 AM »
Anti-war judge rejects foster teen's bid to join military
By Dana Bartholomew, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 03/07/2008 07:16:45 AM PST

SIMI VALLEY - Shawn Sage long dreamed of joining the military, and watching "Full Metal Jacket" last year really sold him on becoming a Marine.

But last fall, a Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner dashed the foster teen's hopes of early enlistment for Marine sniper duty, plus a potential $10,000 signing bonus.

In denying the Royal High School student delayed entry into the Marine Corps, 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.

"The judge said she didn't support the Iraq war for any reason why we're over there," said Marine recruiter Sgt. Guillermo Medrano of the Simi Valley USMC recruiting office.

"She just said all recruiters were the same - that they `all tap dance and tell me what I want to hear.' She said she didn't want him to fight in it."

Sage, 17, said he begged for Mackel's permission.

"Foster children shouldn't be denied (an) ability to enlist in the service just because they're foster kids," he said. "Foster kids shouldn't have to go to court to gain approval to serve one's country."

Mackel, a juvenile dependency commissioner at the Children's Court in Monterey Park, declined through a clerk to speak about any court case or comments she may have made in court.

Transcripts of juvenile court hearings require a special release from a judge. Court
Advertisement
officials said a transcript of the Sage hearing, if released, would not be available for a week or more.

After Sage submitted a winning entry to the lawmaker's Write a Bill Challenge, Assemblyman Cameron Smyth introduced legislation last month that would allow foster teens to enlist in the service without express permission from a judge.

Instead, AB2238 would allow foster children 17 or older to sign up with the consent of a foster parent or social worker.

"Here is one impressive young man who somehow made it through the challenge of the foster system, had a clear sense of a career path and was denied that opportunity by a judge basically because of her personal bias," said Smyth, R-Santa Clarita, who will honor Sage today at a Royal High assembly.

"I find that to be a horrific abuse of her power."

It was Oct. 12 when Medrano, in crisp dress blues, appeared with Sage before the commissioner to petition for his early enlistment.

The USMC Delayed Entry Program, like those in other services, allows high school seniors to enlist in the service up to a year before starting boot camp.

Recruiters encourage students to hone their study skills, learn to eat right and become fit enough to don a uniform.

By "DEPing in," students can enlist at 17, get their high school diploma, then lock in a military job such as Force Recon - or scout snipers. They also qualify for a signing bonus.

"We just gave out the last one for recon today to another kid for $10,000," USMC Master Sgt. Edgar Carpenter of the Marine Recruiting Office in Simi Valley said Wednesday.

"The Delayed Entry Program supports everything a parent would try to do: We make them stay out of trouble; get them in physical condition; and get them indoctrinated into the Marine Corps culture."

Only Mackel - and it appears a court bailiff as well - objected to the program, despite pleas from Sage and Medrano.

"I tried. I said, `Please.' I begged. He tried, he said, `Please' and begged," Sage said. "But she refused."

Mackel said she denied delayed enlistment to an eager Navy recruit as well, Medrano said.

She expressed concern that recruiters treat recruits "like another warm body," he said. "She said, `All you care about is your numbers."'

At this point, the 10-year Marine said the court bailiff raised his hand and addressed the young Sage.

"My son's in the Army," he said. "He did the Delayed Entry Program. They don't care about you. They're just there for the numbers.

"I said, `No, I'm not them," Medrano said. "I care about Shawn (and) about every single person I put into the Marine Corps. I follow them. I take care of my kids. I treat them like my Marines.

"It just felt like, wow. I even told Shawn, I said, `Dude, it feels like we've been burned at the stake at the Salem witch trial.' She just had some kind of animosity toward military personnel."

Early this year, Berkeley city officials drew national fire for calling Marine Corps recruiters "uninvited and unwelcome intruders" while granting free parking for anti-war protesters. Lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington pushed bills to deny millions in funds to city coffers.

Sage, who lives in Simi Valley but is originally from Florida, was abandoned by both parents when he was 2 and now lives in a foster home with his brother.

He had wanted to join the military ever since he'd met a service rep at school at age 7 - first the Air Force, then the Navy, finally the Marines.

His foster parents, as well as his social worker, supported his decision to enlist early. Despite being denied, he still shows up for USMC physical training.

"Did they ever kick my butt," he said proudly. "They still do."

When he graduates and turns 18 in June, it'll be all Semper Fi, bonus or no signing bonus, whether he's allowed early deployment or not.

As winner of Smyth's "there oughta be a law" contest, he will be flown to Sacramento to testify before the Assembly.

"I didn't do it for the signing bonus, because I'm a motivated kid," he said. "I am hoping to join the military before I graduate. I want to serve my country."

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_8482917?source=rss_viewed

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11149
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2008, 10:37:01 AM »
glad to see legislation introduced to stop this kind of judicial non-sense
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2008, 11:17:28 AM »
If this kid joins the Gyrenes, gets sent to Iraq and gets himself killed, will overruling this judge still be seen as a good thing?
Two words: CANNON FODDER
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2008, 11:19:25 AM »
This is about as bad as it gets.   >:(   Judges are to interpret existing law.  Can someone help me out here, what law(s) was she interpreting to make this ruling??  Ami, any idea?  Bt?  Pooch?  It's 1 thing to be against the war and/or military.  As a Judge that position should be completely irrelevent to any cases brought before them, no?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11149
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2008, 11:24:08 AM »
sirs the pacifist will say the judge is in charge of him like a parent. i think a parent must sign to allow a person under 18 to join. so they are going to claim that this leftist judge is acting as a wise parent appointed by the state and she like a parent is refusing to sign off on this. of course in 3 months this fine young man will be able to do as he so chooses. in the future i wonder if foster parents or the youth have any say in getting the judge presiding over their custody changed?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 11:27:18 AM by ChristiansUnited4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2008, 11:31:07 AM »
"They" may say this, but where's the relevent precedent?  Where's the relevent law being interpreted?  THAT's the dominion of a Judge, to be an impartial JUDGE, not a partial parent
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2008, 12:01:56 PM »
The judge is acting 'in loco parentis'- in place of a parent.
Surely a parent has the right to decide than an underage child should not enter into a type of employment noted for having a high chance of death or mutilation for life. If the parent has this right, do does the judge.

Of course, this is really a moot issue, because in a few months, at age 18 the kid can enlist at will, get his blood money, and go frisking off to boot camp. He may become a hero and a general, or he may become a vegetable or a corpse.

I am sure that the eventual outcome will be used to declare that the judge was spectacularly wise or just a bolldy nuisance, interfering with   Destiny with a capital D.

But I understand why a judge might declare in this fashion. Were I a judge, I would not wish to see this kid come home in a body bag or a wheelchair maimed for life and know that I did not do all I could to prevent it. Wouldn't you?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11149
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2008, 12:21:40 PM »
"having a high chance of death or mutilation for life"

That is completely inaccurate.
Most Marines do not die or become mutilated, not even anywhere close to most.
Closer to a tiny, tiny fraction.
In reality there is a not a "high chance" of death by joining the US Marines.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2008, 12:33:55 PM »
The judge is acting 'in loco parentis'- in place of a parent.
Surely a parent has the right to decide than an underage child should not enter into a type of employment noted for having a high chance of death or mutilation for life. If the parent has this right, do does the judge.

Not according to California law.  The court just decided that a parent can't even decide how to educate their children.  So parental rights are not an issue in this state.  According to MT, the parents don't "own" the child.  The kid has rights, darn it, and parents can't overrule them.  It takes the government to do that.  This is, in fact, the court acting in loco parentis, with emphasis on the loco.

I am sure that the eventual outcome will be used to declare that the judge was spectacularly wise or just a bolldy nuisance, interfering with   Destiny with a capital D.

Few rational people would make such a connection.  If the child is killed or if he earns the Medal of Honor it will not be because of the judge.  It will be because of his own free will.  Only those with a political axe to grind would make the argument that the judge caused the problem one way or the other.  If the kid joins and gets killed, the judge cannot say "toldja so" because the judge is not concerned about the kid or his potential death.  She is concerned about imposing her political viewpoint on society.  She doesn't belong on the bench, but neither do many in that part of the country.

But I understand why a judge might declare in this fashion. Were I a judge, I would not wish to see this kid come home in a body bag or a wheelchair maimed for life and know that I did not do all I could to prevent it. Wouldn't you?

As a parent, which is far more relevant to the issue, I would never want my kid to come home in a body bag.  I would not, however, refuse to honor his right to make that decisioin for himself.  If one of my kids joined the army and was killed, I would mourn his death, but I would honor his decision to die for his country. 

It might interest you to know that one of my children attempted to enlist about a year ago and was unable to pass the physical.  She OBJECTED to the war in Iraq.  She is a strong liberal Obama-voting woman.  But she told me something that floored me. She said that in spite of her anger over the war in Iraq, she was even MORE angry that recruiters were having trouble getting people to join the military.  She said that in World War II people were standing in line join up in spite of the danger, and it pissed her off to see people refusing to support their country today.  Her love for her country was greater than her objection to the war.  By trying to enlist, she was putting her viewpoint into action.  I don't think I've ever been more proud.  When she complains about Bush's policies in Iraq, I feel like she has more than earned that right, though she was unable to actually serve.  Like the soldiers over there, she put her money where her mouth was. 

The judge was wrong.  There is one scenario where she might claim some moral victory.  If the kid decides in the next few months not to join up after all, she can claim he was given sufficient time to reconsider and gain a few more months of maturity.  Otherwise, his enlistment was only delayed - not prevented - and her decision to put both the parental and the individual rights aside will solidify her liberal credentials and do nothing more.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2008, 12:48:11 PM by Stray Pooch »
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Rich

  • Guest
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2008, 12:55:19 PM »
>>Shawn Sage long dreamed of joining the military, and watching "Full Metal Jacket" last year really sold him on becoming a Marine.<<

Good for him, but I wonder what there could possibly be about that movie that would make you want to join the military. The abusive drill sergeant? The enemy snipers? The boobie traps?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2008, 02:13:46 PM »
"having a high chance of death or mutilation for life"

That is completely inaccurate.
Most Marines do not die or become mutilated, not even anywhere close to most.
Closer to a tiny, tiny fraction.
In reality there is a not a "high chance" of death by joining the US Marines.

=============================================================
In reality, you have to compare what might happen to the kid in the Marines with what might happen to him as a civilian.

If he were flipping burgers, learning auto mechanics, stocking a supermarket, delivering messages, or other jobs a 17 years old might do, he would be MUCH safer than in the Marines, particularly if he were sent to Iraq.

The chances of being seriously maimed are much greater in Iraq, where there are bullets flying and bombs exploding than in civilian life. There is also the danger of  PTS syndrome and other psychological problems.

What if you were the judge and the kid came back maimed or legless?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2008, 02:31:39 PM »
So, in Xo's world, it's better if someone is flipping burgers than representing and defending one's country.  gotcha 
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Rich

  • Guest
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2008, 02:47:03 PM »
>>So, in Xo's world, it's better if someone is flipping burgers than representing and defending one's country.  gotcha <<

It's an either or thing in that world. Stupid people either flip burgers, or join the military. It's the low fruit thing ....

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2008, 02:53:22 PM »
So, in Xo's world, it's better if someone is flipping burgers than representing and defending one's country.  gotcha

=====================================================================
The contention is that it is SAFER. Observe the opinion of capitalism: if military were not at greater risk, insurance companies would be overjoyed to insure them. But the fact is that they won't, and military insurance has to be provided by the government. I am sure that the government pays out a lot more than it takes in on servicemen's insurance.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And, no, there's no "gotcha" at all.

It is also my contention that busting down some Iraqi family's door at 3:00 AM in Ismailiya or some other place in Iraq is not, repeat NOT, defending this country. It is not important to the defense of the USA whether Sunnis or Shiites run Iraq. Iraq has had some sort of government for 6000 years, that is to say, during every moment of the existence of the USA until now, and their government has never even been KNOWN to most Americans until 1990 or so.

Even if, say, this kid were risking life and limb so Americans could get gasoline for only $2.29 point 9 a gallon in lieu of $3.55 point nine a gallon, I don't think that he could be said to be defending the USA at all.

**********************************************
This case is moot, since when the kid is 18, he can go join the Marines anyway. If he isn't old enough to be trusted with a bottle of Jim Beam, it beats the Hell outta me how he can be trusted to make the right decision about signing up for the Marines. But I am pretty sure that if I were that judge, I'd personally not want his death on my conscience.


"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Judicial Excess?
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2008, 03:15:10 PM »
So, in Xo's world, it's better if someone is flipping burgers than representing and defending one's country.  gotcha

=====================================================================
The contention is that it is SAFER.

Depends......one can be near the grill, all the time, risking 2nd - 3rd degree burns every day, and the other might be a mechanic for Humvees in South Carolina.  Joining the military is not defacto front line firefighting.  And you know this. 

But instead, you distort the notion of joining the military, implying how it's this massive risk of life and limb.  Ok, let's go with that distortion for a moment.......it's risking life and limb in the defense of their country.  As someone who was apparently implying racism as being noble, from my perspective, there's nothing much more noble than serving one's country, and risking their life in the defense of it.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle