Divorce Court Judges



In Compatible Divorce, Robert Sherwin states “... in many jurisdictions, these judges who are either aging ... or who are quite frankly inferior, are assigned to the unpopular divorce courts...  Because of his age or inability... he is forced to accept the odious.”  He notes that by a conservative estimate 50 percent of all U.S. judges are incompetent.  Among divorce court judges the percentage of the incompetent is probably much higher.

Activist judges are destroying much more than the Constitution; they are also undermining marriage.  With each other’s blessing and outright connivance, courts supported by peripheral government agencies routinely demolish twenty-year marriages and put asunder children.  These worthies may in cold blood deliver their sentences of death to families, with less time and attention than they devote to contemplating their lunch menu.

Discrepancies between legality and morality are enormous and innumerable.  The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits government-established religion.  Based only on this fact, and through some tortuous rationalization that would mystify the founding fathers, morality has become taboo in court.  It is as though a lobotomy had been performed on the judicial sense of decency.  Sexual morality is especially ignored in custodial determinations.

Marriage is a contract, and it is the responsibility of the legal system to enforce contracts.  That’s what judges get paid for; but with this, the most important contract, that’s what they refuse to do.  Adept at sophism, judges claim to be following dictates of society; yet their anti-male rulings may be caused instead by what they see other judges doing, a chicken/egg situation.  Like hamsters spinning in their cage wheels, they make the same catastrophic mistakes over and over.

Momism is practically a judicial religion.  For example, consider this eulogy worthy of a legislator, “What a mother’s care means to her children has been so much romanticized and poetized that its substance has sometimes been lost in the flowers of rhetoric, in the aureole of song, and in the vivid color and glistening marble of painting and sculpture.  A mother’s care means instruction in religion and morals, it means the inculcation of patriotism and love of country, it means the maintenance of a clean heart, it means the imparting of lessons on duties in citizenship, courtesy and good will to one’s fellow-man, it means the practical things of preparing healthful food and the mending and repair of clothing, it means ceaseless vigil and the balm of the healing, and when fever visits and the virus strikes — it means all these things and a million others, from all of which the child grows up resolved that he may never be unworthy of the lessons learned at the knee of his most loving companion, his best teacher, his most devoted defender, and his greatest inspiration for this and the life to come, his blessed mother.”  Christ, I could throw up!

The judicial favoring of female litigants is caused by an enmeshing of many, sometimes deep, motivations or psychological compulsions difficult to fathom.  There are several theories.  One is that male litigants are arbitrary scapegoats in an orgy of catharsis or overcompensation for past bias against and suppression of women.  Other explanations include barely concealed sadism, masochism, or jealousy of younger men still possessed of their virility.  Judges apparently get an ‘ego-blast’ satisfying a primitive, self-aggrandizing sex urge or rooster instinct, which they have opportunity to exploit.  It has been demonstrated in research projects that this compulsion is especially noticeable if the woman is attractive.

Women’s tears influence male judges more than does the law of the land.  Most judges are probably convinced they’re doing something for poor, defenseless women, although these women are usually about as defenseless and cunningly aggressive as healthy lionesses.  Presumably, most judges had decent mothers or they wouldn’t have achieved such high office.  A big cause of their prejudice, as I see it, is that they equate all women before them with their mothers.  Big mistake!  Even if they have led a very sheltered life oblivious to the inadequacies of single motherhood, many of their actions and pontifications are indefensible.

The Judge Nolands, mentioned earlier, of the world who systematically and spinelessly relegate children to the clutches, and fathers to the bondage, of unfit mothers scorn morality, family, and the welfare of children – the very principles they profess to uphold.  Unable to differentiate between diseases and symptoms, they piously agonize over the breakdown of society’s moral fabric and the disintegration and disorganization of families, ignorant of the fact that these problems are merely symptoms of a disease that they themselves helped cause – father deprivation.

Because giving custody of children to unfit mothers is child abuse, divorce court judges are among the worst child abusers of all – moral, if not legal, criminals.  They have ruined more children than Doctor Spock, and deserve to be punished under Sharia law.  Yet little thought is given to punishment of the perpetrators – except among some militant divorce reform activists.

Send mail to Webmaster  with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2017 Men's Defense Association
Last modified: March 30, 2017