Walter Croskey: Difference between revisions
(Added some initial thoughts regarding 2008 case.) |
(Added further thoughts.) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Walter Croskey is a | Walter Croskey is a Republican judge who was appointed by Deukmejian in 1987. He was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Deukmejian in 1985. | ||
In 2008 Croskey, as part of a child abuse case, ruled that parents do not have the right to home school their children and that parents wishing to homeschool their children must have a teaching credential. This ruling was later reevaluated by the 2nd Court of Appeals (including Croskey) and overridden as touching this issue. <ref>[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/justices/croskey.htm "Homeschooling In California: For Now, It's Protected, and No Need for Parental Educational Credentials, but There's More to Come"], I Speak of Dreams, Friday, August 08, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/education/images/080808homeschooling.pdf Updated ruling related to homeschooling] from SignOnSanDiego.org</ref> From what little I have read (around | In 2008 Croskey, as part of a child abuse case, ruled that parents do not have the right to home school their children and that parents wishing to homeschool their children must have a teaching credential. This ruling was later reevaluated by the 2nd Court of Appeals (including Croskey) and overridden as touching this issue. <ref>[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/justices/croskey.htm "Homeschooling In California: For Now, It's Protected, and No Need for Parental Educational Credentials, but There's More to Come"], I Speak of Dreams, Friday, August 08, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/education/images/080808homeschooling.pdf Updated ruling related to homeschooling] from SignOnSanDiego.org</ref> From what little I have read (around 30 pages) of the second ruling, I am not much impressed by the analysis. I hope to investigate more. | ||
One site I found stated that in 2009 Croskey ruled that the Police in California cannot use known illegal immigration status as a justification for launching a police investigation.<ref>[http://www.debbieschlussel.com/5337/california-appeals-court-we-might-as-well-just-open-the-borders/ "California Appeals Court: We Might As Well Just Open the Borders"], Debbie Schlussel, June 24, 2009, - 2:27 pm</ref> Having read this ruling, myself, however, I find nothing alarming. The case is a challenge to LAPD Special Order 40 (which is apparently no longer a technically correct way to refer to the policy) which among other things, prevents the police from launching investigations solely on the basis of illegal immigration status. First, this effects only areas served by the LAPD. Second, while I think the policy is overly broad, it is very legal and is not at all novel in 2009. (Though, the policy is older.) Medical Marijuana provides an interesting corollary. Like illegal immigration, medical marijuana is not federally legal. Nevertheless, it is legal in California, and California authorities apparently only have authority to enforce California laws, though they can generally investigate, and cooperate with the federal government to facilitate the enforcement of federal laws. Nevertheless, you won't find California police officers worrying about the medical marijuana issue, because it's really not their job anymore. (It may be more complex than that, but you get the idea. We don't enforce that law here. It's a federal thing.) Now, in the case of illegal immigration, apparently the LAPD can work with federal agents to facilitate their enforcement of the law, but they can't, as a matter of policy launch an investigation on that basis, which is perfectly legal, because it's not really their job. That's what this ruling comes down to, and whether you like it or not, it nonetheless seems correct, and I would expect nothing less than "correct" from a good judge. <ref>[http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/calsctaliens.pdf Harold P. Sturgeon v. William J. Bratton et al., Break the Cycle et al., Interveners and Respondents] from Debbie Schlussel</ref> | One site I found stated that in 2009 Croskey ruled that the Police in California cannot use known illegal immigration status as a justification for launching a police investigation.<ref>[http://www.debbieschlussel.com/5337/california-appeals-court-we-might-as-well-just-open-the-borders/ "California Appeals Court: We Might As Well Just Open the Borders"], Debbie Schlussel, June 24, 2009, - 2:27 pm</ref> Having read this ruling, myself, however, I find nothing alarming. The case is a challenge to LAPD Special Order 40 (which is apparently no longer a technically correct way to refer to the policy) which among other things, prevents the police from launching investigations solely on the basis of illegal immigration status. First, this effects only areas served by the LAPD. Second, while I think the policy is overly broad, it is very legal and is not at all novel in 2009. (Though, the policy is older.) Medical Marijuana provides an interesting corollary. Like illegal immigration, medical marijuana is not federally legal. Nevertheless, it is legal in California, and California authorities apparently only have authority to enforce California laws, though they can generally investigate, and cooperate with the federal government to facilitate the enforcement of federal laws. Nevertheless, you won't find California police officers worrying about the medical marijuana issue, because it's really not their job anymore. (It may be more complex than that, but you get the idea. We don't enforce that law here. It's a federal thing.) Now, in the case of illegal immigration, apparently the LAPD can work with federal agents to facilitate their enforcement of the law, but they can't, as a matter of policy launch an investigation on that basis, which is perfectly legal, because it's not really their job. That's what this ruling comes down to, and whether you like it or not, it nonetheless seems correct, and I would expect nothing less than "correct" from a good judge. <ref>[http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/calsctaliens.pdf Harold P. Sturgeon v. William J. Bratton et al., Break the Cycle et al., Interveners and Respondents] from Debbie Schlussel</ref> | ||
Chen v. Superior Court has also been cited as having been a bad call, but upon review, his ruling appears to be fair and non-ideologically incriminating. | |||
Seems to be a moderate. Overall, I'm concerned about his handling of the issue of home-schooling, but other complaints against him do not appear (based on my limited legal background) to be well grounded. | |||
== External Resources == | == External Resources == | ||
* [http://www.appellatelaw.net/ca/judges/hwaltercroskey.htm Walter Croskey] on Apellate Law | * [http://www.appellatelaw.net/ca/judges/hwaltercroskey.htm Walter Croskey] on Apellate Law | ||
* [http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/state/vote/croskey_w/ Walter Croskey] on SmartVoter | * [http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/state/vote/croskey_w/ Walter Croskey, 1998] on SmartVoter | ||
* [http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/state/vote/croskey_w/ Walter Croskey, 2010] on SmartVoter | |||
* [http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/justices/croskey.htm Walter Croskey] on the California Courts website. | * [http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/justices/croskey.htm Walter Croskey] on the California Courts website. | ||
* [http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Walter_Croskey Walter Croskey] on Judgepedia | * [http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Walter_Croskey Walter Croskey] on Judgepedia | ||
* [http://www.judgevoterguide.com/research/nov2010/Justice-CA-Appeal-Dist2-Div3.pdf Walter Croskey] on JudgeVoterGuide.com | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Latest revision as of 19:20, 26 October 2010
Walter Croskey is a Republican judge who was appointed by Deukmejian in 1987. He was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Deukmejian in 1985.
In 2008 Croskey, as part of a child abuse case, ruled that parents do not have the right to home school their children and that parents wishing to homeschool their children must have a teaching credential. This ruling was later reevaluated by the 2nd Court of Appeals (including Croskey) and overridden as touching this issue. [1] [2] From what little I have read (around 30 pages) of the second ruling, I am not much impressed by the analysis. I hope to investigate more.
One site I found stated that in 2009 Croskey ruled that the Police in California cannot use known illegal immigration status as a justification for launching a police investigation.[3] Having read this ruling, myself, however, I find nothing alarming. The case is a challenge to LAPD Special Order 40 (which is apparently no longer a technically correct way to refer to the policy) which among other things, prevents the police from launching investigations solely on the basis of illegal immigration status. First, this effects only areas served by the LAPD. Second, while I think the policy is overly broad, it is very legal and is not at all novel in 2009. (Though, the policy is older.) Medical Marijuana provides an interesting corollary. Like illegal immigration, medical marijuana is not federally legal. Nevertheless, it is legal in California, and California authorities apparently only have authority to enforce California laws, though they can generally investigate, and cooperate with the federal government to facilitate the enforcement of federal laws. Nevertheless, you won't find California police officers worrying about the medical marijuana issue, because it's really not their job anymore. (It may be more complex than that, but you get the idea. We don't enforce that law here. It's a federal thing.) Now, in the case of illegal immigration, apparently the LAPD can work with federal agents to facilitate their enforcement of the law, but they can't, as a matter of policy launch an investigation on that basis, which is perfectly legal, because it's not really their job. That's what this ruling comes down to, and whether you like it or not, it nonetheless seems correct, and I would expect nothing less than "correct" from a good judge. [4]
Chen v. Superior Court has also been cited as having been a bad call, but upon review, his ruling appears to be fair and non-ideologically incriminating.
Seems to be a moderate. Overall, I'm concerned about his handling of the issue of home-schooling, but other complaints against him do not appear (based on my limited legal background) to be well grounded.
External Resources
- Walter Croskey on Apellate Law
- Walter Croskey, 1998 on SmartVoter
- Walter Croskey, 2010 on SmartVoter
- Walter Croskey on the California Courts website.
- Walter Croskey on Judgepedia
- Walter Croskey on JudgeVoterGuide.com
References
- ↑ "Homeschooling In California: For Now, It's Protected, and No Need for Parental Educational Credentials, but There's More to Come", I Speak of Dreams, Friday, August 08, 2008
- ↑ Updated ruling related to homeschooling from SignOnSanDiego.org
- ↑ "California Appeals Court: We Might As Well Just Open the Borders", Debbie Schlussel, June 24, 2009, - 2:27 pm
- ↑ Harold P. Sturgeon v. William J. Bratton et al., Break the Cycle et al., Interveners and Respondents from Debbie Schlussel