Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55

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

  1. #21
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    So, you're saying a straight judge has nothing to gain or lose as a result of deciding this case?
    I don't know. I see a lot of straight folk who seem to have something to gain or lose in the SSM debate. They keep saying something about defending marriage and blah blah blah.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #22
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    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.
    Bull ****! You folks are always saying that gay marriage doesn't affect heterosexuals at all, so which is it, you can't have it both ways?

    Furthermore, a literal reading on the law is inescapable, and Walkers ruling might indeed be thrown out based soley on his sexuality. I wonder if any of you holier than thou gay supporters would feel the same way if a polygamist was the judge ruling in a similar fashion? Oops.. What about a celibate pedophile, a drunk, drug user, anyone that has a lifestyle that they wish to legitimize ruling in favor of their lifetsyle.

    Don't give me the tired old arguments gay is not a choice blah blah.. YOU can't prove it isn't anymore than I can prove it is, so let's do ourselves a favor and argue the merits of my above assertion. Don't distract, and answer the questions..

    Thank God it's Friday..

    /Rant over.. Feeling better already.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  3. #23
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,989

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Bull ****! You folks are always saying that gay marriage doesn't affect heterosexuals at all, so which is it, you can't have it both ways?
    And neither can you all. You can't say that it affects straights, but then suggest straights wouldn't be prejudiced by a gay man would be.

    Furthermore, a literal reading on the law is inescapable, and Walkers ruling might indeed be thrown out based soley on his sexuality. I wonder if any of you holier than thou gay supporters would feel the same way if a polygamist was the judge ruling in a similar fashion?
    Would have no issue with it based on him being a polygamist, if I had issues it would be constitutionally based.

    Oops.. What about a celibate pedophile, a drunk, drug user, anyone that has a lifestyle that they wish to legitimize ruling in favor of their lifetsyle.
    Again, I don't care about them so much as I care about thier legal reasoning. If that is faulty, then I will complain and argue. If their legal reasoning is sound, but they happen to be part of said group, then I'm not going to harp on it because it doesn't change the legal soundness of their argument.

    In this case, the Judges argument was sound constitutionally imho.

    Don't give me the tired old arguments gay is not a choice blah blah.. YOU can't prove it isn't anymore than I can prove it is, so let's do ourselves a favor and argue the merits of my above assertion. Don't distract, and answer the questions.
    And similarly you can't prove that being straight is any less of a choice than gay if you subscribe to that theory. That said, the choice of the grouping matters little to me in this case. Perhaps if the Judge had actively brought suit previously to make marriage legal, or had been a political proponent of it, then I'd say differently. However, simply being gay does not automatically make you biased towards allowing gay marriage any more than being a fundamentalist christian (also a "choice") would bias you against it.

    Would you allow a strong christian judge rule over this case?

  4. #24
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

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

    Zyph -
    And neither can you all. You can't say that it affects straights, but then suggest straights wouldn't be prejudiced by a gay man would be.
    In this context though, Walker stood to realize gain precisely, and materially relevant to the subject matter. With a heterosexual judge you simply cannot make that argument. If anything, all you could argue is that a heterosexual judge would only preserve the traditional rights inferred by marriage.

    Would have no issue with it based on him being a polygamist, if I had issues it would be constitutionally based.
    The law, through its storied history can be manipulated, and interpreted in many different ways. Walkers ruling ultimately comes down to an interpretation of the 14th, and due process. When the SCOTUS gets this case, so too will they interpret the law based on the same set of facts.

    Again, I don't care about them so much as I care about thier legal reasoning. If that is faulty, then I will complain and argue. If their legal reasoning is sound, but they happen to be part of said group, then I'm not going to harp on it because it doesn't change the legal soundness of their argument.

    In this case, the Judges argument was sound constitutionally imho.
    Fair enough. I can live with that, I too am partial to the soundness of any decision, but rather than bring up that whole debate again, let's just agree to disagree on just how sound Walkers ruling was.

    And similarly you can't prove that being straight is any less of a choice than gay if you subscribe to that theory. That said, the choice of the grouping matters little to me in this case. Perhaps if the Judge had actively brought suit previously to make marriage legal, or had been a political proponent of it, then I'd say differently. However, simply being gay does not automatically make you biased towards allowing gay marriage any more than being a fundamentalist christian (also a "choice") would bias you against it.
    Except that, Walker has been in a committed relationship for 10 years, and a right that did not previously exist, is up to him, and only him, as to whether that right, should now exist. Being a fundamental Christian would matter only if religion or any expression thereof was used in the rationale for deciding the case, and if so, then yes, it would make the ruling invalid.

    Would you allow a strong christian judge rule over this case?
    Yes, as I doubt very much that someone's religion would play any part in the deciding factor, because if it did, it would be easy to demonstrate.

    Furthermore, I reject the comparison that if homosexuality is a choice, then so too is heterosexuality. I can't prove it any more than you can, but in terms of anecdotal, and directly observable evidence, I am in no position to doubt that heterosexuality, or opposite sex pairing is the baseline for all, or almost all life on Earth.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  5. #25
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

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

    This was a good precedent.

    Had they ruled otherwise, then any time a heterosexual judge with a girlfriend presided over a case concerning marriage, they would have to recuse themselves because it could potentially impact them.

    This puts an unreasonable demand upon any judge to recuse themselves if they could have any potential benefit at any time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  6. #26
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Bull ****! You folks are always saying that gay marriage doesn't affect heterosexuals at all, so which is it, you can't have it both ways?
    Please look up "strict scrutiny", "intermediate scrutiny", and "rational basis review". In a nutshell, to make a law outlawing SSM, the supporters of the law have to show how it is in the interest of the state to outlaw SSM. The argument used is that it is damaging to all marriages. Hence, any married person has a conflict of interest, based on the arguments used by those against SSM in court.

    Furthermore, a literal reading on the law is inescapable, and Walkers ruling might indeed be thrown out based soley on his sexuality. I wonder if any of you holier than thou gay supporters would feel the same way if a polygamist was the judge ruling in a similar fashion? Oops.. What about a celibate pedophile, a drunk, drug user, anyone that has a lifestyle that they wish to legitimize ruling in favor of their lifetsyle.
    This is false. The only way he would have a conflict of interest would be if he intended to actually get SSM himself, and we have no evidence of that. Further, it is possible to be gay and actually oppose SSM(Yes, it does happen). You are making the first mistake made by those who see people as what they are, instead of who they are.


    Don't give me the tired old arguments gay is not a choice blah blah.. YOU can't prove it isn't anymore than I can prove it is, so let's do ourselves a favor and argue the merits of my above assertion. Don't distract, and answer the questions..
    Nowhere have I commented in this thread on whether being gay is a choice or not, nor is it a part of my arguments on the topic. So don't go building that straw man. Don't distract from the actual topic.


    Thank God it's Friday..

    /Rant over.. Feeling better already.


    Tim-
    Friday this week is the start of my work week.
    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.

  7. #27
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I don't think a gay jurist should have to recuse himself because he's judging a gay issue. I think you're right, "Supreme Court here we come," but I don't think he's going to be over-ruled. Same as if a black jurist is reviewing a black man's conviction...an amputee jurist is reviewing an amputee issue. Where would it end if decision was thrown out?
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #28
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I don't think a gay jurist should have to recuse himself because he's judging a gay issue. I think you're right, "Supreme Court here we come," but I don't think he's going to be over-ruled. Same as if a black jurist is reviewing a black man's conviction...an amputee jurist is reviewing an amputee issue. Where would it end if decision was thrown out?
    But the restriction doesn't have anything to do with the blatently obvious. The law specifically states that if there is any reasonable reason to recuse yourself out of any impartiality then a judge must do so. AND.... If the judge has anything to gain as a "direct" result of their ruling, then they must recuse. The syntax is important here.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  9. #29
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    But the restriction doesn't have anything to do with the blatently obvious. The law specifically states that if there is any reasonable reason to recuse yourself out of any impartiality then a judge must do so. AND.... If the judge has anything to gain as a "direct" result of their ruling, then they must recuse. The syntax is important here.


    Tim-
    There is no reason to think that just because he is gay he will not be impartial.

    He would only stand to gain something if he plans on getting married. However, based on the arguments used by those arguing in court for Prop 8, and strait judge who was married did stand to gain based on the ruling.
    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.

  10. #30
    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 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.
    I can certainly understand that argument but the suggests a persons sexual leanings overrides their experience, education and the respect for the law. Married people, women, singles, etc, can make decisions based in a divorce court without having to mention the condition of their marriage. I see this along similar lines.

    If a judge erred on a decision and it was clear that it was biased, then it would quickly be subject to appeal. In this case there doesn't seem to be any problem from a legal point of view, only on the sexuality of the judge. That doesn't seem right.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •