Skip to main content

It is my understanding that the district court in Colbert County handles a lot of cases involving children. Two of the candidates do not have children.

I remember how much my life changed when I had children. My entire perspective and outlook changed, my priorities shifted, and I viewed the decisions that other people made in regards to their families differently.

I hope that the two candidates without children are blessed with them one day. However, until that time, I don't think that they have the life experience to be the judge in a family court. The family court judge needs to be someone who truly can place themselves in the shoes of the families in that courtroom before making a decision.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Jug makes a bit deal about the problems in Lauderdale and boy do we have them. The family court judge got elected here because he was better at gladhanding than the Christian judge we had. This new judge promised to save marriages.

Well, he since divorced his wife, his kids don't speak to him and he gave a married (then) woman a job that he created. I'll let you fill in the blanks on that one. When it all came to light he went before his church and apologized and stated he wouldn't run again. Guess what?

So being married and having kids don't always make the best judges.
quote:
So being married and having kids don't always make the best judges

And I suppose being a "christian" makes one a better judge? WHY do so many want to bring religion into the courts and government yet the same ones scream so loudly when the same courts and government intervene into religious ground?
Should we not keep religion and courts/government seperate? I don't understand.
I think what's more important is how someone treats the family they have. I don't think the number of children you've been blessed with should play a factor in how you comprehend the law. There are parents in this world that don't deserve to be parents because of the way they treat their children. There are also people who would obviously make wonderful parents but are still waiting on their miracles to arrive. And of course there are people who are unable to have children all together, or choose not to for that matter, but are still able to be excellent role models to the young people in their lives. Family, in the sense of the court, has more to do with compassion and understanding than genetics. I think this post was just another attempt to discredit candidates, in this case, candidates that do not have children. It doesn't take a judge to be a parent, and it doesn't take a parent to be a judge.
While having experience raising children is a very important factor when choosing a judge to preside and make rulings over family issues it is certainly not the only factor. A judge presiding over a family court must go outside written laws from time to time and make choices about what they feel is best for a child which is an area that there are no clear cut written laws on. How can someone without experience in a parental role make such a decision? At the same time if I had a choice between a parent with questionable character and/or wisdom and a candidate with no children that exhibits decent morals and common sense then I would go with the non-parent.
quote:
Originally posted by Teena Applegate:
I think what's more important is how someone treats the family they have. I don't think the number of children you've been blessed with should play a factor in how you comprehend the law. There are parents in this world that don't deserve to be parents because of the way they treat their children. There are also people who would obviously make wonderful parents but are still waiting on their miracles to arrive. And of course there are people who are unable to have children all together, or choose not to for that matter, but are still able to be excellent role models to the young people in their lives. Family, in the sense of the court, has more to do with compassion and understanding than genetics. I think this post was just another attempt to discredit candidates, in this case, candidates that do not have children. It doesn't take a judge to be a parent, and it doesn't take a parent to be a judge.


Perhaps if Chad Coker was a parent, he wouldn't have taken Taft Miles' case.
quote:
Originally posted by paw-paw:
quote:
So being married and having kids don't always make the best judges

And I suppose being a "christian" makes one a better judge? WHY do so many want to bring religion into the courts and government yet the same ones scream so loudly when the same courts and government intervene into religious ground?
Should we not keep religion and courts/government seperate? I don't understand.


Take a look at our country and government. Do you think it's a good time to kick God out?
God was kicked out a long time ago and look what it has gotten us. All the libs want to blame soda in schools for making kids fat, but kids have gotten progressively fatter since God was kicked out of schools. I don't believe either has anything to do with fat kids. Blame the parents for raising kids who'd rather be inside under the air conditioner, eating and playing computer games all day.
How's that for high-jacking a thread?
My point is this; ever since this country has chosen to turn a deaf ear to God, things have progressively gotten worse. Whether you're a Christian or not, you cannot deny this fact.
quote:
Originally posted by paw-paw:
quote:
So being married and having kids don't always make the best judges

And I suppose being a "christian" makes one a better judge? WHY do so many want to bring religion into the courts and government yet the same ones scream so loudly when the same courts and government intervene into religious ground?
Should we not keep religion and courts/government seperate? I don't understand.
Yes, we should Paw-Paw!
quote:
Originally posted by paw-paw:
quote:
So being married and having kids don't always make the best judges

And I suppose being a "christian" makes one a better judge? WHY do so many want to bring religion into the courts and government yet the same ones scream so loudly when the same courts and government intervene into religious ground?
Should we not keep religion and courts/government seperate? I don't understand.


Just leaving any "Christian beliefs" out of it, Judge Smith never left his wife for another woman and his kids still speak to him as far as I know and he never gave some gf a cush job with my money. So even if he was an athiest, he's a much better man in those depts.

Now back to subject.
quote:
Originally posted by deshlertigermom:
It is my understanding that the district court in Colbert County handles a lot of cases involving children. Two of the candidates do not have children.

I remember how much my life changed when I had children. My entire perspective and outlook changed, my priorities shifted, and I viewed the decisions that other people made in regards to their families differently.

I hope that the two candidates without children are blessed with them one day. However, until that time, I don't think that they have the life experience to be the judge in a family court. The family court judge needs to be someone who truly can place themselves in the shoes of the families in that courtroom before making a decision.
I THINK IT IS A PLUS FOR A GOOD JUDGE TO HAVE CHILDREN,,,IF I WENT TO COURT WITH MY CHILD I WOULD WANT TO KNOW I HAD A JUDGE WITH THAT EXTRA EXPERIENCE OF BEING A FATHER,,,RAISING CHILDREN DEFINATELY GIVES YOU THAT EXTRA EXPERIENCE,,,THAT IS ONE IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION IN MY OPINION,,,
quote:
Originally posted by paw-paw:
quote:
So being married and having kids don't always make the best judges

And I suppose being a "christian" makes one a better judge? WHY do so many want to bring religion into the courts and government yet the same ones scream so loudly when the same courts and government intervene into religious ground?
Should we not keep religion and courts/government seperate? I don't understand.
TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU,,,A TRUE CHRISTIAN WILL ALWAYS MAKE A BETTER JUDGE NO MATTER WHAT,,,ENOUGH SAID,,,WE NEED MORE JUDGES WITH GOOD MORALS WE CAN TRUST!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
God was kicked out a long time ago and look what it has gotten us. All the libs want to blame soda in schools for making kids fat, but kids have gotten progressively fatter since God was kicked out of schools. I don't believe either has anything to do with fat kids. Blame the parents for raising kids who'd rather be inside under the air conditioner, eating and playing computer games all day. SOOOOOOOOO TRUE!!!
How's that for high-jacking a thread?
My point is this; ever since this country has chosen to turn a deaf ear to God, things have progressively gotten worse. Whether you're a Christian or not, you cannot deny this fact.
Take a look at our country and government. Do you think it's a good time to kick God out?
I never said kick God out of anything. It's just the one-sided thinking of some people.
They don't want the government to have anything to do with any religion (as it should be)
But, at the same time, they want to infuse religion into public office. The constitution directs seperation of church and state. It MUST go both ways,
We all have a sin nature and its hard enough as as a Christian to not get caught up in worldly things, situations, and even dishonesty...
I can't fatham how any non-christian Judge would rule on a case that they have no conviction from God (that only a Christian has) when they are doing something they shouldn't or ruling based on the Buddy system not the Law. only my personal opinion(as a christian) and I think God should be a factor in all Politics and I want to know who is and is not a Christian, before I vote for any Democrat or Republican!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×