Posted on 02/07/2010 10:47:44 AM PST by SmithL
The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation.
They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians.
"There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.
As evidence, she cites the judge's conservative - albeit libertarian - reputation, and says, "There wasn't anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
This was a show trial. Goebbels would be smiling.
I guess if Hitler were a judge at Nuremberg, the Nazi’s would have been found guilty as they were too, right?
No bias....What horseshitte and he was born in the same county as I grew up in.....
Unbelievable! Why was this guy not removed from this case?
I wonder what other state constitutional amendments would be candidates for being struck down?
This is pure malfeasance.
If this passes then there we have lost the rule of law.
Interesting how tribalism seems to be a common trait among all liberals.
From NRO’s “The Corner”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzk5N2QzNDAwYmRjMzJlYzRkZTFjOGM1MzVkNjhlZWU=
Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment [Ed Whelan]
According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”
In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay. It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially. I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.
From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions:
Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate. Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.
Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial.
Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees.
Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.
Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause.
And so on.
Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.
Talk about a conflict of interest, but what do we expect from California Liberals (who control the state).
As a side issue, I had my taxes done this weekend. The taxpreparer was surprised I did not own additional state taxes but was getting a refund instead (we increased our deductions in January).
The state had made some changes in the tax rate but few taxpayers made the adjustment and and my preparer said almost everyone so far is having to pay additional state taxes.
This will get the attention of the average Californian then anything else so far.
Perhaps this case may be their “bridge too far” moment.
For the very same reason that heterosexual judges are not removed from cases sexuality.
And because they could not find an asexual federal judge to take the case.
Some would like the judge to recuse himself because he is gay...they fear a biased decision in favor of the gay side. Would the other side want the judge to recuse himself if he were straight?
The Bushies stike again.
That is nonsense, as the very same could be said by Prop 8 opponents if the judge were straight.
This is a joke, right? How could they not expect it would be appealed? And I find it hard to believe this judge got the case on rotation. Judge shopping, right?
Depends on who is asking...
if he can’t see how this could be perceived a conflict of interest then he’s not a very good judge.
For the very same reason that heterosexual judges are not removed from cases due to their sexuality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.