The Kitties are restless,
Won't you donate?
please?
Posted on 04/26/2011 6:02:34 AM PDT by ClayinVA
SAN FRANCISCO – Rumors swirled that the federal judge who had struck down California's same-sex marriage ban last summer was gay, but the lawyers charged with defending the measure remained silent on the subject. Their preferred strategy for getting the ruling overturned on appeal was to focus on the law, not a judge's personal life, they said.
Eight months later, Proposition 8's proponents and their attorneys have taken a new position. They filed a motion Monday seeking to vacate Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's historic ruling, a move they said was prompted by the now-retired jurist's recent disclosure that he is in a long-term relationship with another man.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The Kitties are restless,
Won't you donate?
please?
He should be removed from the bench for failing to recuse himself and then disbarred.
Of course, it won’t happen.
The 2nd paragraph in the article (see above) says he is now retired.
If he was straight and married and ruled in favor of marriage, could the other side have used that against him?
It's a stupid basis on which to seek recusal because it is so easily turned around. They were right not to raise that argument the first time around.
Homos are nothing but trouble bump.
No, because homosexuality is a form of mental illness.
No because this is not an argument of gay vs. normal marriage and which side should prevail. The question is, "Should the status quo be altered for at the request of a distinct and uncommon minority?" Imagine if the case were about allowing someone to live in a large tent instead of a house in a residential neighborhood. If the judge also lived in a large tent somewhere that would be a reason for recusal. However if the judge lived in a residential home, that would not be.
Wasn’t Barney Frank “involved” with the head of Fannie Mae? Things like that are unimportant if the left finds it to advantage.
“If he was straight and married and ruled in favor of marriage, could the other side have used that against him?”
If he was a Baptist minister, they would have the right. The idea is to prevent someone with strong bias being involved. Many straight judges are liberals who would still bend over backwards, so to speak, for homosexuals, but a homosexual judge - like a Baptist minister - has too much skin in the game, so to speak.
“No, because homosexuality is a form of mental illness.”
Well you can believe that, I can believe that. Try getting the psychologists to testify to it in court.
Yeah I was being a little facetious.
What a cornucopia of wonderfulness the good “doctors” have given us resulting from their decision that since half of them were homo, it must not really be a disorder.
This fruitcake has a long-term relationship with a male partner!
(enough to make you gag!)
“If he was straight and married and ruled in favor of marriage, could the other side have used that against him?”
No it would not be a credible issue because he then would not have had a personal and DIRECT stake in the outcome of the case.
Omigosh...Jimmy Carter with a goatee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, because a hetersexual judge would receive no possible financial benefit from his ruling either way. If gay marriage is allowed and Walker and his partner decided to marry, the judge would directly benefit financially from his decision in the case. That is one of the criteria for recusal - if you have a real or potential financial interest in the outcome of the case. We know Walker was biased about the case by the way he handled it - having a trial when none was requested or needed, intimidating the witnesses for the defense by trying to broadcast the trial in defiance of the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court, by manipulating the standing issue to try to prevent an appeal (why did the county clerks from Alameda and San Francisco have standing to sue, but the county clerk from Riverside did not have standing to defend the law?), etc. But this is not about mere bias, but about potential conflict of interest. There are clear rules that judges must follow, and it seems Walker had an obligation to at least notify the parties to the case that he could possibly receive a financial benefit from the outcome.
It’s about time somebody finally got serious about this obvious conflict of interest.
The case was rife with the judge playing favorites.
His verdict was 98% his personal opinion and 2% legal.
He then claimed that the pro-8 side had no grounds to appeal his opinion.
At issue is whether the judge had a specific personal interest in the outcome. Does this judge have a financial interest in ruling in favor of special rights for homosexuals in order to inherit as a “spouse” from another man?
Were there any promses made by the judge and his sex partner dependent upon the outcome ruling?
Keep in mind the APPEARANCE of wrong IS wrong for judges. The judge had an affirmative duty to disclose this trap. The attorneys had a duty to bring it up too.
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.