Posted on 02/08/2010 11:20:51 AM PST by DesertRenegade
The lede from an article out Sunday in the SF Chronicle reads as follows:
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.
Interesting. So, what to make of this fact?
According to the article, folks aren’t making much of it. Andy Pugno, general counsel for the group that sponsored the Prop. 8 campaign, rebuffed claims that his group might bring it up if Walker ultimately rules against them. “We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said.
Others quoted in the article say that Walker, appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush in 1989, say they don’t believe that Walker’s sexual orientation will affect his ruling on Prop. 8.
Walker has declined to talk about anything involving the Prop. 8 case outside court, and he wouldn’t comment to the Chron when we asked about his orientation and whether it was relevant to the lawsuit.
We can certainly understand why the parties might not want to address Walker’s sexual orientation: No reason to stir more controversy into a case that will ultimately be settled at the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. Plus, it’s not like Judge Walker raised his hand for the case — it was reportedly randomly assigned to him.
But is Walker’s sexual orientation relevant to the trial? Frankly, it’s hard to see how it’s not, especially if you believe that the opinions of judges, try as they might to divorce their personal opinions from their rulings, are invariably colored and informed by their own experiences, just like the rest of us.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
He should recuse himself from the case. Conflict of interest.
I think it depends on his history as a judge.
Ya, he should have recused himself when it was assigned to him.
But they are right, this is only the first round, and the ultimate decision may well be made in the U.S. Supreme Court. Whoever loses this trial will appeal, and whoever loses at the appeals court level will appeal to the Supreme Court.
if a judge is going to benefit from his won decision then he should step down form the case.
this judge will and therefore should step down and why are we even talking about the judge , this should not even be in court and the judge should have said no the constitution states normal marriage now be gone with you and keep your sexual sick mind private
He knows this. I say it is better to have this judge be gay as if he rules against the gays they cannot call him homophobe.
I personally don’t think that sex-offenders and perverts should be judges.
Any bets now on how the Ninth will vote on this? I'm thinking it will be just another overturn waiting to happen when they rule for it.
I think the key is for some investigators to look into his past. In almost every case, these unrepentant homosexuals are hiding something ugly in their past. Look at the case of Kevin Jennings, the homosexual militant that Obama placed in charge of children’s education. All they did was scratch the surface and they found NAMBLA connections and more. Judge Walker is hiding something, it just hasn’t surfaced yet.
I don’t think we have enough information to make a judgment on this.
Should judges who smoke be barred from tobacco cases? Should Christian judges be barred from cases involving religious freedom?
The fact that he is gay should not affect the judges philosophy. (I agree that it might)
you know I’m glad you brought Jennings up.
I watch Beck and see him gong after these radical czars and think great he’s doing a great service to the country but wait someone is missing and that was Jennings.
Did anyone else notice how he never went after Jenning?
He could go after Dunn for saying she likes a mass killer or Van jones for being a commie but nothing about a man placed in charge of safety for our kids at schools.
He was teaching kids how homosexuals stick a fist up another homosexual mans arse and Beck seems to not think this should be covered and where was O.R. who protects the kdis he says on this?
Jennings needs to go and if the public was aware of this kind of radical then the white house would be awash with people demanding Jennings to be fired .
If the public knew about how these homosexuals act then there would be even less support for them as there is now and that’s not much right now
I bet he likes being handed Briefs.
that’s what going to be the cause for appeal on both sides.
He must support the gay position or he’ll be crucified by his own.
“Should judges who smoke be barred from tobacco cases?”
Not a correct analogy. Smoking is not currently illegal while homosexual marriage IS illegal in California. So you have an avowed and unrepentant sodomite judge who is presiding over a case on illegal same-sex marriages. It’s full stop insanity.
Homosexual marriage is illegal. Homosexuality is not.
Your logic says that a Christian judge should always rule in favor of Christian churches.
An honest judge would rule according to the law. Period.
bias is to be removed but not “common sense”
the issue is defining what is “common sense” and in a debate where one of the issues is nature vs nurture definitions are very important.
No matter what this will be appealed.
The judge would be smart to stick to process rather than recreational mating issues.
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.