California Supreme Court May Ban Judges from Being Boy Scouts

Not in California you don't

Not in California you don’t

Being Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent will actually disqualify you from being a California judge.

The state Supreme Court’s ethics advisory committee wants the court to prohibit California judges from membership in the Boy Scouts because the 2.7 million-member youth organization bars gays and lesbians from becoming troop leaders.

Banning scout membership would “promote the integrity of the judiciary” and “enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,” the ethics committee said Wednesday.

Yes, nothing promotes the integrity of the judiciary like banning judges from participating in a children’s organization because it doesn’t cater to gays.

Naturally being a member of La Raza or GLAAD would in no way undermine public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, because… crickets.

I’m not sure when exactly the line between Communism and California blurred this badly, but it’s certainly getting hard to see the difference.

The ethics committee’s unanimous recommendation is another sign of a changing climate that has included increasing public, political and judicial support for same-sex marriage. Six of the advisory committee’s eight members are judges, and the chairman is Richard Fybel, a state appeals court justice in Santa Ana.

The changing climate though isn’t making life better, it’s making life worse. It isn’t setting people free, it’s telling them what they can’t do or be.

In response, Deron Smith, a spokesman at Boy Scouts headquarters in Irving, Texas, said the Scouts “would be disappointed with anything that limits our volunteers’ ability to serve more youth. … Today, more than ever, youth need the character and leadership programs of Scouting.”

Not in California. Its leaders are doing just fine being untrustworthy, disloyal, dirty, unhelpful, hostile, rude, cruel, frivolous, cowardly and contemptuous.

  • tagalog

    As the progressive agenda shuts down option after option, choice after choice, it becomes clearer and clearer who wants a system that fosters liberty and freedom of choice and who doesn’t, doesn’t it?

    • BS77

      Liberals actually do not want true diversity…only the types of people that fit their agenda.

    • BS77

      Eventually the wackos will say no white Christian males can be judges, or anyone who belongs to the NRA, or anyone who doesn’t wear earrings …..Catholic? Forgeddaboudit.

  • A Z

    With liberals it is their way or the highway. There is no compromise.

    Boy Scouts Vote to End Ban on Gay Scouts; Gay Adults Still Barred

  • truebearing

    We are at war. It’s time more of America wakes up and chooses sides. Apathy is choosing the insanity and evil we see in California.

    I question the legality of that ever-so-unethical decision. It needs to be challenged as soon as possible.

    How can these fools call themselves an ethics committee when they ban adherents to the very definition of ethics from being judges? The absurdity of that nonsense is only exceeded by the dishonesty.

  • Ed FDNYRetiree

    When, oh when will a 9.9 on the Richter scale rid us of this contemptuous gaggle of liberal morons?

  • Gee

    Since when is it legal to say what organizations a person may belong to? The 2nd Amendment doesn’t seem to be enough – now they want to take away the 1st as well

  • snaves

    If they can ban Judges from being Boy Scouts they can ban others from other things. When is California going to
    vote out politicians that appoint people so weird.