jimboston wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:jimboston wrote:Updates...
1) The judge has ordered the State to pay for this guy's electrolysis (per doctor review / expert review).
2) The judge has announced he's retiring (going part time I guess)... but it has NOTHING to do with this case.
Well, like player pointed out, we can't just be ok with a system until something like this comes up which rubs us the wrong way and affects our personal sensibilities. There is a system in place and this case is just one product of that system, perhaps a necessary evil, but for all intensive purposes, a just ruling. If the judge is semi-retiring because of heat from this issue it doesn't necessarily mean he did the wrong thing, given the letter of the law. It appears he was just doing his job. He is a scapegoat, which is never a valid situation.
If Player did point this out it was buried in 1000 words of other crap, so I never read it.
Yeah.. anything you don't want to hear you dismiss as "crap". Too bad you think that is intelligent debating...and too bad a large segment of US society seems to think so as well (on ALL sides, that! I have probably MORE disdain, not less for supposedly liberal folks who cannot be bothered to even listen to anyone with seemingly conservative ideas or actually conservative ideas).
jimboston wrote:I am not and haven't been "OK" with the system. Just that more often life gets in the way, and it takes something extraordinarily ridiculous to raise my ire... and the ire of the "silent majority".
Being opposed to the system is irrelevant to this issue. You declared the judge an "activist judge" for making a ruling you dislike, My whole point is that the judge is essentially not allowed to have "likes and dislikes" in his rulings. He has to rule according to the law, wich includes precedents, whether you, I or he likes it or not.
I ALSO made the point that if you dislike the law, then the procedure is to get the law changed. The ironly here is that if this judge HAD ruled as you would like, then he would be an "activist judge". Instead, he followed the law.
YOUR task, if you dislike this, is to get the law changed. BUT.. that involves actually understanding a bit of the issues and not just " I think transvestites are wackos and anyone who says different is a wacko, too". You were too busy telling everyone how idiotic the whole idea of gender surgery was to even bother to understand the real issues... and THAT is a very, very big problem.
jimboston wrote:Also... it's just YOUR opinion that the judge made the right ruling. Just because that was his ruling... it DOES NOT mean it was the RIGHT ruling. He's a human being and certainly capable of making mistakes.
The LAW determines if it was the correct ruling, not whether you like the outcome or not. In this case, the judge followed the law. THAT is the part you continually seem to ignore.
It is the law that you can say is "wacko", not the judge.
Now... for green, etc... I am "on the fence" about gender surgery. MY basic statement is that when average, not convicted people cannot get such surgeries covered by insurance for which they pay, then we have no obligation to provide it for prisoners. BUT.. that needs to be changed through the law, not judges excercising personal opinions.