Anti-war judge rejects foster teen's bid to join military

[Thiebear]

Chomerics claims he all about the soldier, but not the military machine... All the spending.

Yet... He immediately disclaims the soldier in this case also.

I joined at 17, and I was immature, shocking i know. Drill Sergeants took care of that.

I'm sure the kid actually got a BILL to pass legislation because the Judge "didn't" do any of those things.. yeah, sure..

[Learned Hand]

Like I said. You're willing to come to a conclusion based on listening to one side of a dispute, but you're graciously willing to revise your position if the other side proves that the first side is lying.

(Me, my assumption is that yes, the judge said (roughly) what the recruiter says he said. I really don't think the recruiter is just making things up. OTOH, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the judge also said other things. In which case you've got a situation where the judge gave multiple reasons for the ruling, and the recruiter is quoting what the recruiter thinks was the main reason. (Or at least, the reason that angers the recruiter the most. And I can see why it would anger the recruiter. The judge basically ruled that he was a professional liar.))

It doesn't matter what else the judge said. Again, if it was in the ballpark of what the recruiter is claiming, it is inapproporiate. Whether her feelings about the war, military, etc., went into her decision as to the juveniles best interests or not, she should not have manifested those views in word or deed.

[Larry]

It doesn't matter what else the judge said. Again, if it was in the ballpark of what the recruiter is claiming, it is inapproporiate. Whether her feelings about the war, military, etc., went into her decision as to the juveniles best interests or not, she should not have manifested those views in word or deed.

Actually, my gut opinion is that yeah, the judge was out of line.

OTOH, counter-example:

If the kid is asking for permission to buy a car on credit, and the judge observes that car salesmen who try to get minors to sign long-term loan papers are underhanded, (and he further observes that, if he rules "no", the only effect it will have is that the kid has to think about his decision for six months before making a long-term commitment), then is the judge being biased? Or is he making a decision on what's in the minor's best interest, based on his personal experience?

[twa]

It doesn't matter what else the judge said. Again, if it was in the ballpark of what the recruiter is claiming, it is inapproporiate. Whether her feelings about the war, military, etc., went into her decision as to the juveniles best interests or not, she should not have manifested those views in word or deed.

Exactly, her decision on this Delayed Entry Program(which is NOT shipping some 17 yr old off to boot camp for the uninformed ) only serves to prevent the kid from the chance of a bonus.

Now he will have to join one of the lesser branches in six months to score a bonus

[Learned Hand]

Actually, my gut opinion is that yeah, the judge was out of line.

OTOH, counter-example:

If the kid is asking for permission to buy a car on credit, and the judge observes that car salesmen who try to get minors to sign long-term loan papers are underhanded, then is the judge being biased? Or is he making a decision on what's in the minor's best interest, based on his personal experience?

Yes, if the judge is manifesting that bias. If the judge has the contract in front of them and notes that it is usurious, then no. (As long as they aren't letting the bias against car salesman show.)

Judges are human and therefore cannot be free of bias, but all judges know that one should not exhibit objective manifestations of that bias. The mere appearance of bias is the problem-hence the Codes of Judicial Conduct.