Posted on 04/07/2011 5:42:53 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
.... this judge for Prop 8 was the only one making this decision and he had a dog in the fight!!.....whereas, on the Supreme Court there are 9 opinions to be considered...
I've been a Freeper as long as you have and I don't need you to explain JR's position with regard to homosexuality. I did not express support for the "gay agenda" or for this particular judge's decison with respect to Prop 9. What I am trying to explain is that every judge appointed or elected to the Federal or State judiciary has bias based upon race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and/or politics, and indeed, many of these judges are appointed or elected to the bench because of these biases. (Hence, the saying, "We didn't get here on the subway.") My point is that if every judge is required to recuse himself whenever he or she shares a characteristic with a party to the lawsuit, then there will be no judges left to decide the case.
For example, in Gore v. Bush, I'm willing to bet that the four Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of Gore also voted for Gore in the presidential election and the five justices who ruled for Bush also voted for Bush in the election. By your standards, each of the nine justices should have recused themselves not only because they shared a characteristic with one of the litigants, but because they actually demonstrated their bias in favor of one of the litigants as evidenced by their vote at the ballot box.
Prop 8 was voted on by the people, the people overwhelmingly spoke their will.
This is true and certainly the will of the people should be the starting point in determining the constitutionality of Prop 8. But let's change the facts and suppose that the people of Kalifornia overwhemingly approved a proposition that requires state and local government to give preference to gays over straight people in the hiring and promoting of public workers. If a heterosexual judge ruled the law unconstitutional, would you call him biased and attack the judge for rejecting the overwhelming will of the people? Suppose Prop 8 reinstituted involuntary servitude. Should the Court uphold the constitutionality of Prop 8 merely because "the people overwhelmingly spoke their will?"
Laughable attempt at equivocation, and an epic failure. Walker demonstrated that he had both a personal stake in the outcome of the case (automatic disqualifier) and an unbelievable bias during the entire proceeding, to the point that he disregarded both settled precedent (Baker v. Nelson) and procedural rules.
Not a strawman at all.
The specific question we are addressing is whether or not Walker should have recused himself. And while we know that the standards for judicial recusal are very subjective, we also understand that judicial recusal is very rare and almost only used in cases where the judge or a family member has direct financial interest in the case or a close family member or associate is a litigant.
However, if you want to expand judicial recusal to areas where a judge may have a personal, non-direct financial interest or he may have some ancillary interests, you will have to recuse many judges and justices.
Justice Ginsburg was at one time a lead council for the ACLU. Should she be recused from the ACLU cases that go before the court?
Justice Thomas’ wife worked at the Heritage Foundation. Should that be cause for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from cases where the Heritage Foundation in involved.
Justice Kagan may be a lesbian. Should she be recused from certain cases that involve lesbian issues?
My answer to all of these is no,
Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution, was it not? So basically the judge ruled that the Constitution can’t be amended?
They have done it repeatedly, once with the immigration proposition 187, and again with two prior votes against same-sex marriage. Put in mind that this is just California. But yes, the big message has been that the rulings of a few justices are more important than the popular vote, they just don’t feel the masses are righteous enough in their judgement.
Exactly.
Strawman, the judge in the prop 8 case was the ONLY one making the decision.
Clarence Thomas is on a group of 9.
No comparison is viable there.
For whatever it is worth.
Since when does a self selected life style equate with one’s sexual assignment, or color?
Remedial reading:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2644629/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2627159/posts
He is all for homomarriage, and the will of the people went against his agenda.
The people must be thwarted!
He should have recused himself, but the left judge shops as they did in this case.
They judge shopped in Wisconsin too.
Judge Sumi, a county judge, repeatedly could not figure out that as a county judge she has no say in the implementation of state law.
These people have infiltrated, infected, subverted and undermined our government..
This freak is a perfect example.
I agree that he should have recused himself.
Should have, but he didn’t.
An he garnered barf inducing praise from the left for not recusing himself.
It is not the same. You and trumandogz are equating race and sex (male/female) with a BEHAVIOR. So you and trumandogz approve of judge shopping? And you equate the decision of ONE judge to EIGHT on the SC? You are both reaching. And I might add, in a VERY dangerous direction.
There's a very big difference.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
We have some defenders of Judge Walker not recusing himself on Prop 8 based on his deviancy. What say you?
The usual suspects.Anyone surprised?
Not really. They need a smack!
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.