Posted on 08/13/2010 10:22:12 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
If you’d like to know what hours of fingernail scraping on a chalkboard feels like, simple give the recent California marriage decision a close read. It’s so blatantly biased as to border on comical. And because it is so over-the-top, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will find it hard to uphold it without employing some creative legal gymnastics to minimize the damage created.
The man responsible for the opinion is United States District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, whose conduct at trial and tone in the opinion resembles Perez Hilton at the Miss America pageant. Who can forget Hilton who, when Miss California said she believed marriage to be the union between one man and one woman, famously ranted: “[L]et me explain to you: she lost, not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she is a dumb [expletive], okay?”
And that’s about as good an explanation as any of Judge Walker’s conclusions in this case. Actually, if Prop. 8 supporters prevail on appeal, it shouldn’t surprise anyone to see Judge Walker follow Hilton’s advice to snatch “that tiara off her head” and run “out the door.” Way beyond the mere “appearance of impropriety”
From the beginning, Judge Walker’s bias, personal feelings, and emotions were evident to anyone following the trial. The report from the San Francisco Chronicle that Judge Walker himself is a homosexual only helped to explain the reasons for Judge Walker’s bizarre behavior. But his biased actions in support of pro-homosexual “marriage” advocates and against the supporters of traditional marriage were in plain view for everyone to see, regardless of his motivation.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
What gets me about this case is that the judge clearly did not apply the law.
Federal law defines marriage as a man and a woman. Yet he ruled that it is against federal law to define marriage as a man and a woman. Are we in Orwell’s “1984”?
He ruled that California defining marriage violates the 14th amendment. He completely ignored the fact that federal law defines marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act is not mentioned in his opinion at all.
Since the case involves how marriage is to be defined, wouldn’t you think that a thorough judge would make note that federal law (aside from 14th amendment claims) defines marriage in the same way as does the stricken down California state law? Since the judge is applying federal law here?
Alternately, how can he strike down California marriage law based on the 14th amendment without also striking down the Defense of Marriage Act?
Who has the right to define marriage in the first place? The people? Legislatures? Federal judges? Lambda Legal?
This is one of the clearest examples of judicial activism I've ever seen.
Roger that. The findings of fact reads more like an ideological manifesto than a legal ruling and deals primarily with philosopical issues rather than factual determinations. It is so over the top there should be no problem getting Justice Kennedy to line up with the Catholic Justices on this one.
Add the US to the list.
There is one significant difference. We may be the sole civilization to impose homo marriage on society.
Alternately, how can he strike down California marriage law based on the 14th amendment without also striking down the Defense of Marriage Act?
Not only this, but the judge in the first circuit struck down the DOMA on the grounds that the states had the right to decide their own marriage laws.
There’s a contradiction here (the judges are using whatever they have to to strike down whatever they want to) that will need to be reconciled.
You’re right. Most laws don’t affect us personally, yet that’s a key argument in favor of homosexual marriage, i.e. that it doesn’t affect your own marriage or your own life.
You could go down the list — gun laws, drug laws, truancy laws, business regulations, minimum wage laws, laws regulating freon in air conditioning systems, and many others. Many laws we have do not affect us personally, yet they are the law because someone, somewhere, decided we should have such laws.
If the criteria are whether something affects you personally, then almost all laws on the books would be ruled unconstitutional.
He should have no right at all to overturn the votes of the people.
I unfortunately have Rep Butterfield who’s a democrat,but how many many votes are to remove a judge from the bench ?
“This is one of the clearest examples of judicial activism I’ve ever seen.”
This is why I never fully trust someone who claims to be a homosexual Republican or a homosexual Conservative. More often than not, their sexual agenda takes precedence over almost everything else.
Opinion: For Same-Sex Marriage Opponents, a Catch-22
“how many many votes are to remove a judge from the bench ?”
I believe than can be removed as long as their is evidence of mental incompetency. There is legitimate concern for this type of inquiry. Does Walker have a terminal illness? Is he suffering from AIDS dementia? Since he is a public official, we have every right to know what is compromising his thought process.
Like saying somebody has the right to marry their sixteen year daughter,or four girls and a goat
Like saying somebody has the right to marry their sixteen year daughter,or four girls and a goat
California is so screwed up it’s time to put the state on sale at e-bay.
Throw in Massachusetts! Make it a 2 for 1 deal!
The State will say it was the defendant and is not going to appeal and say the people have no standing to appeal... the State did the same with Prop 187...
No pun intended but this case was the very worst of dirty backdoor poltics you will ever see...
Is there any good conservative groups that support a US Constitutional Amendment banning fag marriages
Is there any good conservative groups that support a US Constitutional Amendment banning fag marriages
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.