California Voters Face Show Trial in Kangaroo Court

Townhall.com ^ | 1-06-2010 | Maggie Gallagher

[freedomwarrior998]

On Monday, Jan. 11, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will put the people of California on trial for voting against gay marriage.

The case will be a show trial in a kangaroo court. I don't say that lightly of any federal judge, but Judge Walker's extraordinary bias has already been flagrantly on display.

Take the trial itself. The constitutionality of Proposition 8 is not really a matter for a trial of fact. It's a question of law. But Judge Walker ordered one anyway. Why? Ordinarily a trial judge's rulings of fact cannot be questioned by higher courts. So the more of his opinions that Judge Walker can stuff into the box of "trial of fact" instead of "review of law," the more power he will have over this historic case.

Next Judge Walker issued an extraordinary ruling that the private intentions of Prop. 8 proponents -- ideas by definition never communicated to voters -- were properly the subject of this trial. So people who worked on the campaign have been put on trial, subpoenaed for all their e-mails and personal correspondence. This is an enormous personal headache, one which will (as intended) discourage participation in the political process in the future.

[Psycho_Bunny]

This jerk should be removed from the bench.

[freedomwarrior998]

He doesn’t care about the rule of law. He’s going to do what he wants. He is basically saying to you, me and everyone else that your voice doesn’t matter. He knows better than you.

[capt. norm]

Here is the judge:

"Oh you nasty boys!"

[ClayinVA]

here is another problem with the courts that is showing up, can’t get around some nutjob judge ruling over facts in your appeal.

[rmh47]

Anybody know anything about this judge? How about posting his home address and personal info?

[SSS Two]

Re: Trial of fact

Am I missing something? It doesn't seem that any facts are in dispute. Everyone agrees that California voters passed Prop 8. What "facts" does the judge want to determine?

[ezfindit]

Why have voters and citizens then? Let the radicals run it all. Who needs a Constitution when totalitarian democrats will tell us how to live and how to think.

[freedomwarrior998]

That's exactly why this homosexual pervert ordered a trial in the first place. Maggie Gallagher is right. The Constitutionality of Prop 8 is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of law. The only reason to order a "trial" would be to muck around with the facts so that you can stack the deck when the case inevitably goes to appeal.

He is purposely trying to stack the deck in favor of the homosexuals when this case makes its way to the Ninth Circus and SCOTUS.

Keep in mind that the Ninth Circus is the court that will be reviewing this case. If they uphold this vermin, not only will the voice of the people in California be overruled, but so will the people who live in AK, AZ, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, & WA (The rest of the Ninth Circuit.)

[freedomwarrior998]

There are no facts in dispute. The judge merely wants to mess with the facts to stack the deck in favor of the homosexuals.

[freedomwarrior998]

Apparently he is a homosexual.

[Right Cal Gal]

I wonder if we’ll see something go up to SCOTUS on this before the trial even starts.

Walker - a Judge Ito for the new millennium.

[dragnet2]

federal judge

Federal government intrusion, once more.

[dragnet2]

Take the trial itself. The constitutionality of Proposition 8

The lawlessness, violence and chaos resulting from what the federal agents did to CA Prop 187, can now been seen from Las Vegas to Georgia and all points in between.

[Political Junkie Too]

Next Judge Walker issued an extraordinary ruling that the private intentions of Prop. 8 proponents -- ideas by definition never communicated to voters -- were properly the subject of this trial.

So now we really have thoughts on trial.

-PJ

[RideForever]

Ahhh, but doesn’t his bizarre ruling open the door to allow defense attorneys to question the Judge’s private intentions about the trial before any further procedures begin? That way it goes on the record.

[freedomwarrior998]

Not really, as a Federal Judge he can pretty much do as he wants. That’s one of the big problems in our system. Federal Judges are dictators.

[ELS]

It is quite obvious that this judge cannot make an impartial decision. Usually in such instances, a judge would recuse himself from the case. Isn’t there any way to prevent this show trial from even happening?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Walker, Vaughn R.
Born 1944 in Watseka, IL

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on September 7, 1989, to a seat vacated by Spencer M. Williams; Confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1989, and received commission on November 27, 1989. Served as chief judge, 2004-present.

Education:
University of Michigan, A.B., 1966

Stanford Law School, J.D., 1970

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Robert J. Kelleher, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1971-1972
Private practice, San Francisco, California, 1972-1990

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male