In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Utah's Lawless Breed
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Utah's Lawless Breed
Sunday, June 9, 2002
Our poor, poor judges. They don't like the fact that the Legislature passed, and Gov. Mike Leavitt signed into law, that courts must provide security lockers for firearms for those have concealed weapons permits and carry their weapons legally. What a tear jerker.
If I went before a judge because I broke the law and said I didn't think I should have to obey it because I didn't agree with it, I'd be told:, "That's tough. It's the law and you'll obey it." But this law directly affects judges, so their disobedience is OK . . . at least in their minds. It's different with judges, when the shoe's on the other foot. If you don't like a law that applies to only you, you choose to ignore it.
Judge K.L. Mcliff, chairman of the board of district court judges, asked all judges to ignore the state law (Tribune, May 23). That statement certainly shows respect for the law. It also shows that judges think they can pick and choose which laws they'll obey. Mr. Mcliff is also quoted as saying: "Never once have I or any judge I know said that we would defy the law. To the contrary, the order out of this court and the position taken by judges throughout the state are in full conformity with the law -- constitutional, statutory and the long history of the judiciary" (Tribune, May 24). Mr. Mcliff urges all judges to ignore the law, then says that he never said the judges should defy the law. Talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
During the Watergate investigation, President Nixon refused to turn over his recordings of conversations he taped in the White House. He said the president was above the law. The Supreme Court promptly ruled that the president is not above the law. Someone needs to tell our pompous judges they're not above the law either.
Filing a lawsuit against the judges to force them to obey the law, as Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has suggested, won't work. A judge judging a judge? Yeah, right! No bias there.
Utah needs to rewrite the laws regarding judges' authority, or if necessary, amend our state's constitution and take away a lot of the power judges have, or think they have, and/or get rid of the Utah Judicial Council which makes the "rules" that judges "follow." Utah needs to put the judges in their place and deflate their egotistical attitudes. But the way our Legislature works, that'll never happen.
It'll be interesting to see who backs down, the Legislature, or the judges. Although the Legislature makes the laws, I'll bet they back down and do whatever the judges tell them to do. Judges should either obey the law as they make us do, or get the hell off the bench.
PAUL HART
Sandy
http://www.sltrib.com/06092002/public_f/743654.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Sunday, June 9, 2002
Our poor, poor judges. They don't like the fact that the Legislature passed, and Gov. Mike Leavitt signed into law, that courts must provide security lockers for firearms for those have concealed weapons permits and carry their weapons legally. What a tear jerker.
If I went before a judge because I broke the law and said I didn't think I should have to obey it because I didn't agree with it, I'd be told:, "That's tough. It's the law and you'll obey it." But this law directly affects judges, so their disobedience is OK . . . at least in their minds. It's different with judges, when the shoe's on the other foot. If you don't like a law that applies to only you, you choose to ignore it.
Judge K.L. Mcliff, chairman of the board of district court judges, asked all judges to ignore the state law (Tribune, May 23). That statement certainly shows respect for the law. It also shows that judges think they can pick and choose which laws they'll obey. Mr. Mcliff is also quoted as saying: "Never once have I or any judge I know said that we would defy the law. To the contrary, the order out of this court and the position taken by judges throughout the state are in full conformity with the law -- constitutional, statutory and the long history of the judiciary" (Tribune, May 24). Mr. Mcliff urges all judges to ignore the law, then says that he never said the judges should defy the law. Talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
During the Watergate investigation, President Nixon refused to turn over his recordings of conversations he taped in the White House. He said the president was above the law. The Supreme Court promptly ruled that the president is not above the law. Someone needs to tell our pompous judges they're not above the law either.
Filing a lawsuit against the judges to force them to obey the law, as Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has suggested, won't work. A judge judging a judge? Yeah, right! No bias there.
Utah needs to rewrite the laws regarding judges' authority, or if necessary, amend our state's constitution and take away a lot of the power judges have, or think they have, and/or get rid of the Utah Judicial Council which makes the "rules" that judges "follow." Utah needs to put the judges in their place and deflate their egotistical attitudes. But the way our Legislature works, that'll never happen.
It'll be interesting to see who backs down, the Legislature, or the judges. Although the Legislature makes the laws, I'll bet they back down and do whatever the judges tell them to do. Judges should either obey the law as they make us do, or get the hell off the bench.
PAUL HART
Sandy
http://www.sltrib.com/06092002/public_f/743654.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments