Attorney General, San Francisco officials defend Proposition 8 ruling

San Jose Mercury News ^ | 5/12/11 | Howard Mintz

[SmithL]

Attorney General Kamala Harris and San Francisco city officials moved Thursday to derail a bid by backers of Proposition 8 to wipe out last year's ruling striking down the law because of the trial judge's same-sex relationship, calling it "tired," "meritless" and motivated by bias against gays.

In court papers, Harris threw California's weight against Proposition 8 sponsors, who recently argued that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the legal battle over same-sex marriage because he has been in a long-term same-sex relationship. Walker last summer found that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, but Proposition 8 backers have moved to set that decision aside.

Harris, in her legal papers, expressed particular concern about the "precedent that might be set" should Walker's ruling be set aside as a result of his sexual orientation. "We do not require our judges to be automatons set apart from the rest of society," the attorney general wrote. "Instead, we recognize that, like the rest of humanity, no judge is free of personal characteristics, beliefs and affiliations, and we presume they will put those aside and apply the law."

Harris has declined to defend the state law, as did her predecessor, Jerry Brown, now governor.

[South40]

28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned “Bias or prejudice of judge,” provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a “timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party,” the case shall be transferred to another judge.

[Williams]

No concern at all that a federal judge set aside the people’s decision.

[rbosque]

This is nothing more than corruption and contempt for the law.

[Graybeard58]

The queers will have their way, no matter what the people say.

[Prokopton]

The queers will have their way, no matter what the people say.

And they wonder why so many people have contempt for them. No, I didn't say fear them, I said have contempt for them.

[hattend]

Attorney General Kamala Harris and San Francisco city officials moved Thursday to derail a bid by backers of Proposition 8

Another Lefty Pinko from San Francisco elected by LA and SF for a statewide office.

I long for the day when everything north of Sacramento breaks away and forms their own right wing state.

[ivyleaguebrat]

I guess you’ll have to ask ProtectMarriage why that motion was never filed.

I mean... I can tell you why it was not. Typically these things turn on financial conflicts. Here, you have a gay judge ruling on something that affects gay people... But to hear some tell it, this is the end of straight marriage. If that’s true, wouldn’t a straight judge be similarly biased? Is a black judge biased against a white defendant? or in favor of a black defendant? If you start reducing these things to the judge’s personal characteristics, it would never end.

That’s why, typically, these things are only really conflicts of interest when there is a financial or former fiduciary duty involved (e.g. where the judge was formerly a lawyer for a cause).