Here we have a situation where the spouse of a judge hearing a case, actively participated on behalf of one of the parties. Any judge with any notion of integrity would have walked. Reinhardt refuses to because he is going to unilaterally strike down the marriage laws of every State in the Ninth Circuit.
Folks, this judge and his puppet (Hawkins) are going to overturn the marriage laws of not only California, but every State in the Ninth Circuit. They have already decided the case.
Congress should disband the 9th circuit, since they have that power.
‘Nation of Laws’ folks. Nation of Laws
He's jumping the shark. Isn't this grounds for impeachment? I don't know who would have standing to make the ethical complaint—Congress, no?
This could be interesting. I wonder if Clarenct Thomas would have to recuse himself from any cases?
Why not let gays marry? Why shouldn’t they have the right to be miserable like the rest of us?
He’s also a lifetime member of the national Prig association.
-PJ
This Judge is in an obvious conflict of interest and is specifically going directly against the Fed’s own adopted guidelines for Judicial Standards.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf
Guide to Judiciary Policy
Vol 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct Pt A: Code of Conduct
Ch 2: Code of Conduct for United States Judges
CANON 3: A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY
The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:
C. Disqualification.
(1)
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a)
the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b)
the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
(c)
the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d)
the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 8
(i)
a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)
acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;
...what am I supposed to be surprised?
Decades of voter apathy are costing us.
Not surprising. There are rules on this and he may not have to recuse due to a relative. Still bad form. he wants to make his leftist statement before this goes to the Supreme Court.
Was there any doubt? Liberal elites never believe that they never represent a conflict of interest since they are so pure and righteous.
Grounds for divorce?
If I were defending the law, I would refuse to even show up to court because the outcome has already been decided and then I would appeal.
.
Judge REINHARDT =
Longtime friend of the CLINTONS =
No “Under GOD” in our Pledge of Allegiance
.
For...
the Enemy is now within,
...always has been..?
.
I’m not surprised he didn’t recuse. It sounds like he should’ve.
Can’t the Yes-on-8 folks appeal this obvious conflict of interest to a higher Court, like the Supremes? Why must the judge in question be the one to recuse himself of his own accord? He obviously has an agenda.