4 ms·

Not sure if this is relevant to this but I would like to remind you that a US judge can order to you be sterilized without your knowledge and you can do nothing

Not sure if this is relevant to this but I would like to remind you that a US judge can order to you be sterilized without your knowledge and you can do nothing about it nor can anything be done to the judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stump_v._Sparkman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

downshun 6y ago
(1978) (1927)
- ipython 6y ago
  Unless those rulings have since been overturned, they are still precedent and therefore relevant. They don’t just expire. For example, the judges involved in the “cash for kids” scandal had their rulings reviewed using a rule established in the 18th century: > Acting under a rarely used power established in 1722 and reserved for extraordinary circumstances, known as "King's Bench jurisdiction",[58] the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed Senior Judge Arthur Grim of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas as special master to review all juvenile cases handled by Ciavarella
  - Natsu 6y ago
    They don't have to be directly overturned--I can't imagine that many judges are still ordering people involuntarily sterilized. All you need are other precedents or laws for something like, say, bodily autonomy ("my body my choice") that's sufficiently persuasive. I really can't imagine those rulings happening today. Did you know? In May 2020, Maryland passed into law a repeal of the crime of sodomy, effective October 1st, 2020. And there are plenty of similar laws still on the books even now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat...
linuxftw 6y ago
So weird how the government routinely grants immunity to themselves, especially the judicial branch. I don't know when the judiciary decide it was the final say in all matters on earth, but fundamentally that is broken.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  All branches actually. You do not see politicians nor police officers often charged with the crimes that they commuted.
defen 6y ago
That's a sensationalized way of describing it. Judges can't just decide to have random people sterilized. The mother petitioned the court to have her minor daughter sterilized. The judge made a large number of procedural mistakes in granting the petition, but the Supreme Court ruled that he didn't act outside of his judicial capacity. The general rule is that judges can't be held personally liable for mistakes they make when acting in their official capacity as judges.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  > Judges can't just decide to have random people sterilized They can if someone petitions for it. > The mother petitioned the court to have her minor daughter sterilized And I can petition to have you sterilized. If the judge accepts it you will not be able to hold him responsible. He does not need to listen to you nor do you need to know about it. > The general rule is that judges can't be held personally liable for mistakes they make when acting in their official capacity as judges. Meanwhile doctors, drivers, etc can be held personally liable for mistakes they make while working.
  - defen 6y ago
    So in your opinion, if I petition a court for permission to kill my neighbor "because he's really annoying", and for some reason the judge says yes, he won't be held liable? Because I disagree. Judges do not have the ability to blanket "bless" actions so long as someone petitions for it. You have to look at the specifics of the case.
    - nitwit005 6y ago
      As long as it survives appeal, judges can basically rule whatever they want. Plenty of crazy rulings have gotten through the courts. Remember that time they ruled it was okay to toss all the Japanese people in internment camps?
      - boudewijnrempt 6y ago

downshun 6y ago

(1978) (1927)

ipython 6y ago
Unless those rulings have since been overturned, they are still precedent and therefore relevant. They don’t just expire. For example, the judges involved in the “cash for kids” scandal had their rulings reviewed using a rule established in the 18th century: > Acting under a rarely used power established in 1722 and reserved for extraordinary circumstances, known as "King's Bench jurisdiction",[58] the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed Senior Judge Arthur Grim of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas as special master to review all juvenile cases handled by Ciavarella
- Natsu 6y ago
  They don't have to be directly overturned--I can't imagine that many judges are still ordering people involuntarily sterilized. All you need are other precedents or laws for something like, say, bodily autonomy ("my body my choice") that's sufficiently persuasive. I really can't imagine those rulings happening today. Did you know? In May 2020, Maryland passed into law a repeal of the crime of sodomy, effective October 1st, 2020. And there are plenty of similar laws still on the books even now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_Stat...

linuxftw 6y ago

So weird how the government routinely grants immunity to themselves, especially the judicial branch. I don't know when the judiciary decide it was the final say in all matters on earth, but fundamentally that is broken.

dependenttypes 6y ago
All branches actually. You do not see politicians nor police officers often charged with the crimes that they commuted.

defen 6y ago

That's a sensationalized way of describing it. Judges can't just decide to have random people sterilized. The mother petitioned the court to have her minor daughter sterilized. The judge made a large number of procedural mistakes in granting the petition, but the Supreme Court ruled that he didn't act outside of his judicial capacity. The general rule is that judges can't be held personally liable for mistakes they make when acting in their official capacity as judges.

dependenttypes 6y ago
> Judges can't just decide to have random people sterilized They can if someone petitions for it. > The mother petitioned the court to have her minor daughter sterilized And I can petition to have you sterilized. If the judge accepts it you will not be able to hold him responsible. He does not need to listen to you nor do you need to know about it. > The general rule is that judges can't be held personally liable for mistakes they make when acting in their official capacity as judges. Meanwhile doctors, drivers, etc can be held personally liable for mistakes they make while working.
- defen 6y ago
  So in your opinion, if I petition a court for permission to kill my neighbor "because he's really annoying", and for some reason the judge says yes, he won't be held liable? Because I disagree. Judges do not have the ability to blanket "bless" actions so long as someone petitions for it. You have to look at the specifics of the case.
  - nitwit005 6y ago
    As long as it survives appeal, judges can basically rule whatever they want. Plenty of crazy rulings have gotten through the courts. Remember that time they ruled it was okay to toss all the Japanese people in internment camps?
    - boudewijnrempt 6y ago