|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
South Carolina Chief Justice Blasts Equal Parenting Bill
John Kittredge draws a sharp, swift rebuke from newly minted gubernatorial candidate Rom Reddy…
13 comments
Patricia DeTreville is one of many attorneys that Reddy likely knows about.
Has been rumored to be notorious like others who practice family law. Tactic to generate cash flow is to throw gasoline on divorce cases where opposing litigants have money and own property. Then have crony judge friends order all legal fees be paid by her client’s adversaries based on unfounded reasons. Nevermind the adversary’s attorney. Down with it all, ineffective counsel.
First the chief Justice gave some very reasoned examples of why one size fits all, second it’s apparent that Reddy has never read the SC Constitution, there are no separation of powers in SC. The constitution was specifically written that way. The legislature controls ALL of the power. I’m not opining that this is right just that it’s a fact. That’s the main reason that it doesn’t matter who the governor is, they are absolutely powerless to do anything but advocate for what they want. The citizenry are the only ones with the power to change anything and most could care less.
Kittredge is no expert in Family Law. He is just another narcissistic idiot on a power trip
Who is the scum that summoned him to testified? Don’t they know they broke the law?????.
Shesshus, these people should be in straight jackets! Expose them all and demand federal prison time
The trial lawyers are criminals!
It is obvious that you are not a real attorney.
Did you know many SCCOL statutes contain the wording “Constitution and Laws of this state and the Constitution and Laws of the United States”?
I have served as a volunteer GAL/Guardian ad litem as well as on the Foster Care Review Board for a combination of some 30+ years. ANY standard other than “the best interest of a child/children” is insufficient.
You been involved that long then you were part of the GAL problem that was brought to light, before.
The truth is that the current system already has a presumption: “primary” parent gets 85% of time with children, “visiting” parent gets 15%. All the judges and lawyers who argued against the bill know this—their income depends on it—but pretended they didn’t
In the current system, even if a judge wants to give a parent 50% time with a child, they cannot because of that presumption, which is derived from case law/judicial precedent stemming from…the same SC Supreme Court that Kittredge presides over. So basically he is arguing against the legislature taking away his authority, which mainly benefits trial lawyers who make bank on a system that holds children hostage from fathers
Will—do you know *who* summoned Kittredge? Are you just assuming that it was legislators? Can you actually report on who invited him to testify?
I want the DOJ to snoop around with Federal agent from outside the state of SC. The ones assigned here can not be trusted.
Hey Greg, so well said. I asked TA Moore – the chairman – right after. He defended the CJ’s appearance, as shown here: https://youtube.com/shorts/5_ARgUDsxq0?si=a7x9lvYCyIU56CtI
What Veni said.
The current chief justice of South Carolina should know that a presumption is just that: a presumption, meaning it can be rebutted.
No one said the bill has an irrebuttable presumption.
Kittredge is excellent at playing victim and at throwing others under the bus.
He was “summoned” by whom? Could the Chief Justice not resist a summons if it were unlawful, a fortiori of dubious authorship?
Kittredge wants to perpetuate a system of belief in magic and wants to not question anything he says or gets people to say in praise of him like that facially incredible story of a bear appearing to him and his friend and subordinate judge Chuck Simmons, which bear Kittredge supposedly outran with his magical powers leaving Simmons to his fate.
Apparently Simmons survived the bear and told the story to South Carolina’s Daily Gazette.
Maybe Kittredge laid his hands on Chuck Simmons and thereby transmitted some magical bear-outrunning powers to the subordinate judge, too.
The point is: even under the “best interest of the child,” judges determine that “best interest” solely by their own magical powers.
No requirement to consult sociological, psychological, pedagogical, medical, penological and/or any kinds of the study that abound in the non-magical world of real science and real scientists.
The bottom line is that you can now get your child taken away from you SOLELY BECAUSE a judge said so; and Kittredge wants it to remain this way.
Why would Kittredge want it so? Easy! He is three years from aging out and returning to private practice.
They can fill books with LAW Kittredge does not know or pretends to not know. And universities are filled with science Kittredge does not even know exists.
Kittredge had no retribution to fear. He is never up for re-election because of aging out.
It is not the Legislature neutering the judiciary. It is the reverse.
The General Assembly calls in officials form the executive branch all the time to give insight and feedback on proposed laws – why are people getting rankled up because it’s the judicial branch instead this time – and Kitteridge didn’t even ask for this?
Rom Reddy’s reaction is petulant and childish, not even addressing the substance of what Kitteridge said. I think the judicial branch has every right to comment upon a law (and it is prudent to ask for their input) that is effectively going to place controlling guidelines on how they can rule in equity. I’m starting to sour on Reddy – I was expecting more from that guy.
Huge difference.
First, the Legislature has oversight power over the executive, because, as the names indicate, the executive dispenses the money the legislature appropriates. These are the two political branches of government.
Second, the Legislature’s power over the supposedly a-political Judiciary is supposed to be SOLELY the power of impeachment.
Third, a judge is ETHICALLY forbidden from engaging in political activity AND from making public statements on issues that are, or that are likely to come, before his court.
Fourth and foremost, both the federal and the state judiciaries are NEITHER required NOR permitted to give advisory opinions. Their constitutional powers are limited to deciding cases or controversies within their jurisdiction and properly before them after acquiring personal jurisdiction over the parties involved. In the U.S., the judiciaries are allowed only the most minimal of administrative powers absolutely necessary for their judicial functions, such as hiring law clerks or secretaries, but no more.
Power-hungry Kittredge continues to violate the two Constitutions he swore to defend; and he does so by ruthlessly punishing his critics and lavishly rewarding his sycophants.