Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55

Thread: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge rul

  1. #11
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,759

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    Quote Originally Posted by 1 Easy Target View Post
    So it is okay for 74 Democrat senators to demand that Clarance Thomas recuse himself from any lawsuits concerning Obama Care because his spouse is a lobbyist on health care issues, but there is no need for the liberal judge to even disclose his potential conflict of interest when sitting in judgement over his right to potentially get married?

    Do you guys even understand what the Judicial Code of Conduct for United States Judges is?
    Here is a link to the PDF.
    Document Viewer

    The applicable sections are 3C (1) (a) and 3C (1) (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;

    (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;

    It is easily argued that the Judge and his partner each have a distinct and personal interest in the outcome of this trial. This trial determines whether or not they have the opportunity to marry. This has direct financial benefits for them if they choose to then get married. Estate planning, inheritance, etc. Since these two men live in California, the law that is in dispute has direct consequences for them. Had he been a gay judge who resides in Nevada, it would be moot point as he would not have the potential for direct financial benefits from his ruling.

    The judicial ethics require him to recuse himself if a reasonable person would believe that he could be biased in the case. If he does not believe that he is biased, then he must explain why he can be impartial and unbiased.

    And if you look at his "finding of facts" from the case, you can see that many of the "facts" he lists were never addressed in his court. Add to this the two incidents with the Appeals court and Supreme courts reprimanding him over his actions prior to testemony and it really looks like he was and is biased.
    So, you're saying a straight judge has nothing to gain or lose as a result of deciding this case?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #12
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    Quote Originally Posted by 1 Easy Target View Post
    So it is okay for 74 Democrat senators to demand that Clarance Thomas recuse himself from any lawsuits concerning Obama Care because his spouse is a lobbyist on health care issues, but there is no need for the liberal judge to even disclose his potential conflict of interest when sitting in judgement over his right to potentially get married?
    Those are not remotely comparable. Being a lobbyist is practically the definition of a conflict of interest. A better analogy would be this: Would Clarence Thomas need to recuse himself from any case the Supreme Court reviewed dealing with affirmative action? Of course not, and it would be racist for anyone to even suggest that he would.

    Besides, the anti-gay marriage argument has always been that EVERYONE is affected by gay marriage, and therefore society has a compelling interest in restricting it. If that is the case, then a straight judge would also have a conflict of interest. And if that's not the case, then it's flat-out discrimination for the sake of discrimination which is obviously unconstitutional.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    Hmm...an instance of Walker not being biased in a case against gay's...Along with a very good point comparing different Propositions that the majority of California voters voted in..but got thrown out...

    "It" was the fact that Walker, years earlier, as an attorney, had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee (which is almost as vigilant as Disney about its brand) in a trademark lawsuit against the Gay Olympics.

    That case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may be where Proposition 8 is ultimately headed, and you know what? Those "activist judges" sided with Walker, and the "Gay Olympics" lost.

    And the other argument being put forward, that "majority rules" and because Proposition 8 won a majority of votes, those voters’ wishes are being violated by this ruling? Well, in the checks-and-balances system, the voters do not always have the last say.

    In a precedent-setting legal exercise nearly 50 years ago, the California Legislature had passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which banned discrimination against ‘’colored’’ property renters or buyers. (Restrictive covenants about not selling to minorities were written into a number of deeds and real estate transactions.)

    About 2/3 of California voters overturned the Rumford Act when they passed Proposition 14, which, like Proposition 8, had amended the California Constitution. Proposition 14 said Californians could indeed refuse to sell or rent to anyone for any reason. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 14 violated the 14th Amendment, and it didn’t matter if 100% of Californians had voted for it -- it was racial discrimination, and unconstitutional. The equal protection clause that Walker cited in his Proposition 8 ruling is part of that same 14th Amendment.
    Link

    Now as for the gay jurist in the OP...considering both the opposition and proponents of Prop 8 have to vet and agree to let potential jurorers be a juror...sounds to me like the proponents knew that they are on shakey ground so let that gay juror slide in so that they could try and make a case later to have the case thrown out.
    Last edited by Kal'Stang; 06-17-11 at 01:17 AM.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  4. #14
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,293
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Besides, the anti-gay marriage argument has always been that EVERYONE is affected by gay marriage, and therefore society has a compelling interest in restricting it. If that is the case, then a straight judge would also have a conflict of interest. And if that's not the case, then it's flat-out discrimination for the sake of discrimination which is obviously unconstitutional.
    This is the key thing and the point most conservatives upset over this don't seem to understand. If a strait judge did not have a similar conflict of interest(more if they are married), then the whole legal argument in defending SSM restrictions falls apart.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    This is the key thing and the point most conservatives upset over this don't seem to understand. If a strait judge did not have a similar conflict of interest(more if they are married), then the whole legal argument in defending SSM restrictions falls apart.
    We have Gay marriages here in Canada and I doubt anyone even notices.

    I'm as straight as an arrow but in the unlikely event I ever broke the law I wouldn't care whether the judge was man or woman, straight or Gay. It's all about honesty and justice.

  6. #16
    Student
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-03-11 @ 03:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    174

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    You all seem to miss the point I was making. A gay judge who did not live in California would not have had any reason to recuse himself as the law he was judging would not affect him directly. Walker lives in California, so has the potential to see significant monetary or personal gain from his decision. This is the basis for the appearance of a conflict of interest. No that he is gay but that he stands to directly gain from the outcome of this decision. As such, he should have recused himself. A reasonable person would be able to see the distinction here.

    As for the argument that a straight judge would also have a conflict of interest, there is no direct personal or financial gain for a straight judge whether or not the law is upheld or overturned. He gains or loses no rights, benefits, etc. If you are making the assumption that as a straight man, he must be biased, then you are essentially saying that nobody should be allowed to judge this case except a gay man.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    07-06-11 @ 10:02 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    232

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    Yes he did.

  8. #18
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    Conflict of interest why? The only way to avoid a conflict of interest in this case would be to bring in a-sexual, marriage-neutral jurors. Good luck w/that.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  9. #19
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    Quote Originally Posted by 1 Easy Target View Post
    You all seem to miss the point I was making. A gay judge who did not live in California would not have had any reason to recuse himself as the law he was judging would not affect him directly. Walker lives in California, so has the potential to see significant monetary or personal gain from his decision. This is the basis for the appearance of a conflict of interest. No that he is gay but that he stands to directly gain from the outcome of this decision. As such, he should have recused himself. A reasonable person would be able to see the distinction here.

    As for the argument that a straight judge would also have a conflict of interest, there is no direct personal or financial gain for a straight judge whether or not the law is upheld or overturned. He gains or loses no rights, benefits, etc. If you are making the assumption that as a straight man, he must be biased, then you are essentially saying that nobody should be allowed to judge this case except a gay man.
    A straight judge would still have something to gain if he is against SSM. That gain would be that Prop 8 would have stayed.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  10. #20
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,759

    Re: Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge

    Quote Originally Posted by 1 Easy Target View Post
    You all seem to miss the point I was making. A gay judge who did not live in California would not have had any reason to recuse himself as the law he was judging would not affect him directly. Walker lives in California, so has the potential to see significant monetary or personal gain from his decision. This is the basis for the appearance of a conflict of interest. No that he is gay but that he stands to directly gain from the outcome of this decision. As such, he should have recused himself. A reasonable person would be able to see the distinction here.

    As for the argument that a straight judge would also have a conflict of interest, there is no direct personal or financial gain for a straight judge whether or not the law is upheld or overturned. He gains or loses no rights, benefits, etc. If you are making the assumption that as a straight man, he must be biased, then you are essentially saying that nobody should be allowed to judge this case except a gay man.
    So a straight judge would not stand to gain. Therefore, straight people lose nothing if two dudes get married. There's no "attack on marriage." Nothing is being taken from you.
    Yes, that has been our point all along, thank you.
    Last edited by Deuce; 06-17-11 at 11:35 AM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •