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 country’s legal system is based on Natural Law and God’s Law.
Was based. Brutally killing unborn children is legal.
Again, you are going to have to go into a court and prove that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
And until you can do that, you will be laughed out or court when you state your theory before a judge.
“Isn’t that concern intrinsic to every judge?”
No. A judge who does not suffer from SSAD, and who does not feel loyalty to another party who does, such as a sibling or friend, will be capable of considering the case on its merits.
It is disordered thinking that interferes with a judge’s performance of duty, not the orderly, rational thinking of an intelligent, educated man.
Disordered thinking and orderly, rational thinking are not equivalent.
This is your argument: “If this irrational man shouldn’t hear the case, then neither should rational men.”
“Again, you are going to have to go into a court and prove that homosexuality is a mental disorder. And until you can do that, you will be laughed out or court when you state your theory before a judge.”
Again, you attempt to exclude truth on specious grounds.
Scurrilous.
That said, if this were still a free society, demonstrating to the satisfaction of an impartial court that “homosexuality” is a mental disorder would be a walk in the park.
Actually, homosexual marriage is not fully illegal in California as the California Supreme Court let stand those marriages that existed prior to the passage of Prop. 8.
And, that of course leaves a big hole for Ted Olson to argue Equal Protection as that flaw created another class of person.
Respectfully disagreeing. A mutilated male does not become a woman, nor does a woman who's had an "addadicktome" become a man.
Our legal system is not constructed on your "if's."
“Being gay is a behavior...”
And are you planning to go before Federal Appeals Court and prove that theory in order to get Judge Walker tossed from the case?
>> This is your argument: “If this irrational man shouldn’t hear the case, then neither should rational men.”
I made no such argument.
My comments are based on the likelihood the judge would be forced to leave the case.
I’m not challenging the opinion that the judge should not be ruling the case. I’m interested in hearing the legally acceptable arguments that require him to be removed from the case.
Should recuse himself.
Great examples. That Walker wanted to broadcast the trial speaks volumes to the open-minded. To those who still don’t think he should recuse himself, perhaps they should check their bias on this example alone.
“Our legal system is not constructed on your “if’s.””
Nor is it constructed on your arbitrary attempts to exclude positions on the specious grounds that no court has ruled in favor of same, *using the same terminology.*
Neither yet does the judiciary establish truth, which is a proposition without which your argument here has no validity.
Exactly. Both Bushes have been toxic to the conservative principles of the Republican base and undermined the Party’s franchise on limited government, reduced federal spending, enforcement of our immigration laws, etc.
Be Careful the Bushbots here on FR will get REALLY mad if you insult their G*Ds Georgie and Georgie Boy.
You simply have no legal grounds to exclude the judge based on his sexuality.
And, if the Court rules against Prop 8 there will not be a word said about judge Walker’s sexuality when the case goes to the SCOTUS.
Therefore, the issue of Walker’s sexuality is moot.
Me: “This is your argument: If this irrational man shouldn’t hear the case, then neither should rational men.”
You: “I made no such argument.”
That proposition is necessary to the argument you made, which was, “Isn’t that concern (bias in a case bearing on the forced legitimization of same-sex attraction disorder) intrinsic to every judge?”
It is clear that such bias exists where a judge himself suffers from SSAD.
If rational men also harbor such bias, albeit in the other direction, then they too should be prohibited from hearing such cases.
Therefore, if all judges harbor such bias, then all should be excluded, rational men and SSAD sufferers alike.
That’s where your argument—that bias which would affect their judgment in cases bearing on the forced legitimization of same-sex attraction disorder is intrinsic to every judge—must necessarily and can only lead.
“You simply have no legal grounds to exclude the judge based on his sexuality. And, if the Court rules against Prop 8 there will not be a word said about judge Walker’s sexuality when the case goes to the SCOTUS. Therefore, the issue of Walker’s sexuality is moot.”
Your argument presumes that the law as presently construed is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.
That is incorrect.
The law as it exists today has been corrupted. That doesn’t make it right, nor does it mean it can never be put to rights.
Further, a failure or refusal to see the conflict of interest in a judge who suffers from SSAD ruling on a matter that advantages people who suffer from SSAD can only be one of two things: irrational, or evil.
“And are you planning to go before Federal Appeals Court and prove that theory”
It is not for him to prove that theory. We see the behavior. The behavior is a matter of fact.
It is for sodomite activists to prove that it is anything more than behavior.
My bet is that when Prop 8 goes before the SCOTUS, that Justices Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens and the rest will refuse to hear anything regarding Judge Walker's 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.