When Judges Get Snarky

(Crossposted on Alas and TADA. Defenses of C4M should be taken to TADA.)

From Judge David Lawson’s decision in a 2005 choice-for-men case (pdf link):

The plaintiff thereafter had difficulty accepting the financial consequences of his conduct, so the State came to his assistance by bringing a legal action that would result in an established schedule the plaintiff could follow in contributing to the financial support of his daughter.

This entry posted in Choice for Men, crossposted on TADA. Bookmark the permalink. 

2 Responses to When Judges Get Snarky

  1. 1
    nojojojo says:

    ::bwaha:: There’s a lot of funny bits in this one. Like here:

    According to the pleadings, Dubay commenced a personal relationship with defendant
    Lauren Wells, dated her, engaged in intimate sexual relations, impregnated her, terminated his
    relationship, and sued her for bearing his child. If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely
    imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.

  2. 2
    mythago says:

    The Court also, non-snarkily, explains why this guy and other ‘opt-out’ proponents get it wrong:

    However, the Supreme Court’s cases do not create a state-enforced right to an abortion; rather, they describe a constitutional right to privacy (which is not absolute) that protects against unwarranted interference by the State into matters of personal decision-making, which include the decision to abort or continue a pregnancy.

    The opinon also includes some sub-snark from another quoted opinion:

    We do not have a system of government like ancient Sparta where male children are taken over early in their lives by the state for military service. The biological parents remain responsible for their welfare. One of the ways the state enforces this duty is through paternity laws.