Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

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

  1. #31
    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
    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.
    Of course there is, hence the feverant debates we've had right here addressing this very point. If it was unreasonable then no one would be talking about it, sheesh? Moreover, beside that point, how could one NOT find it reasonable to find the potential for impartiality? He's ruling on a law that would directly affect his entire life going forward? Is THAT unreasonable? What would a straight judge stand to gain by ruling on gay marriage?


    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

  2. #32
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    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
    Of course there is, hence the feverant debates we've had right here addressing this very point. If it was unreasonable then no one would be talking about it, sheesh? Moreover, beside that point, how could one NOT find it reasonable to find the potential for impartiality? He's ruling on a law that would directly affect his entire life going forward? Is THAT unreasonable? What would a straight judge stand to gain by ruling on gay marriage?


    Tim-
    People talk about unreasonable things all the time. For example, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya.

    Based on the arguments for a restriction on SSM used in court, a gay unmarried judge has less conflict of interest than a strait married judge. The only way you could show evidence of conflict of interest is if you could prove that the judge wanted to get married in California, or that his ruling was flawed due to bias. Good luck in finding either of those things.

    What you are doing is trying to use vague accusations to throw doubt on the ruling. The reason it is failing is because you don't have anything within the ruling itself to show bias.
    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.

  3. #33
    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
    People talk about unreasonable things all the time. For example, Obama is a Muslim from Kenya.

    Based on the arguments for a restriction on SSM used in court, a gay unmarried judge has less conflict of interest than a strait married judge. The only way you could show evidence of conflict of interest is if you could prove that the judge wanted to get married in California, or that his ruling was flawed due to bias. Good luck in finding either of those things.

    What you are doing is trying to use vague accusations to throw doubt on the ruling. The reason it is failing is because you don't have anything within the ruling itself to show bias.
    No, see you do not understand the law as written that's why the syntax is important, Redress. We don't argue the reasonableness things after the fact, only if it existed at the time he was presiding.. And just because you and a few others don't find it unreasonable does not matter. It's whether the general public would find it unreasonable if given the same criteria. I think many would. Look at DADT as an issue. You find it reasonable to allows gays into the military, a great many of us do not, and the reasons for not wanting it are reasonable. It's a matter of interpretation and the weight of the evidence that rules the day. Evidence is not always, hardly ever so clear cut, and the gay marriage question is what I would fit into that category.


    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

  4. #34
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    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-
    So then a woman should not be allowed to judge a case where another woman is suing the state over not allowing her access to the morning after pill after being raped? Because I can easily see the potential that the woman judge might gain something from the decision to ensure that women who are raped have timely access to the morning after pill because there is the possibility that the judge might be raped and need timely access to the morning after pill.

    Also, you are essentially saying that no judge could make a ruling regarding some state/federal money that people get, such as welfare or social security or Medicare, because there is a good possibility that any judge could benefit from these things if they rule in favor of them.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 06-17-11 at 04:41 PM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #35
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    No, see you do not understand the law as written that's why the syntax is important, Redress. We don't argue the reasonableness things after the fact, only if it existed at the time he was presiding.. And just because you and a few others don't find it unreasonable does not matter. It's whether the general public would find it unreasonable if given the same criteria. I think many would. Look at DADT as an issue. You find it reasonable to allows gays into the military, a great many of us do not, and the reasons for not wanting it are reasonable. It's a matter of interpretation and the weight of the evidence that rules the day. Evidence is not always, hardly ever so clear cut, and the gay marriage question is what I would fit into that category.


    Tim-
    It's not reasonable, though, is our point. Being gay is not automatic bias towards gay cases, especially given this particular judge's history on such cases.
    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.

  6. #36
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    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
    No, see you do not understand the law as written that's why the syntax is important, Redress. We don't argue the reasonableness things after the fact, only if it existed at the time he was presiding.. And just because you and a few others don't find it unreasonable does not matter. It's whether the general public would find it unreasonable if given the same criteria. I think many would. Look at DADT as an issue. You find it reasonable to allows gays into the military, a great many of us do not, and the reasons for not wanting it are reasonable. It's a matter of interpretation and the weight of the evidence that rules the day. Evidence is not always, hardly ever so clear cut, and the gay marriage question is what I would fit into that category.


    Tim-
    Actually I do understand the law and the syntax. You seem to be the one troubled there. In fact, the courts have agreed with me now on how I read it. What you seem to fail to understand is how Prop 8 was argued in court, and what that means.
    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. #37
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    No, see you do not understand the law as written that's why the syntax is important, Redress. We don't argue the reasonableness things after the fact, only if it existed at the time he was presiding.. And just because you and a few others don't find it unreasonable does not matter. It's whether the general public would find it unreasonable if given the same criteria. I think many would. Look at DADT as an issue. You find it reasonable to allows gays into the military, a great many of us do not, and the reasons for not wanting it are reasonable. It's a matter of interpretation and the weight of the evidence that rules the day. Evidence is not always, hardly ever so clear cut, and the gay marriage question is what I would fit into that category.


    Tim-
    The thing is, there are no reasonable, sound arguments to prevent someone from entering into a legal marriage based on their sex alone, not when you take into account how marriage works for opposite sex couples and what exactly the state interest is that they are trying to protect by limiting marriage by sex/gender.

    The will of the people argument doesn't work because you are talking about discrimination and preventing a group of people from entering into a legal contract based on their sex alone.
    The procreation argument doesn't work since opposite sex couples who cannot procreate or who don't want to procreate, some even taking steps to permanently prevent procreation, are allowed to enter into a legal marriage contract.
    The harm to any group argument doesn't work because there is no way to prove this "harm" which is absolutely necessary if you are claiming harm will be done.
    The "its tradition" argument doesn't work because you can't defend discrimination with it being traditional.
    The slippery slope arguments of polygamy or any other marriage types being legalized doesn't work because, just as same sex couples are now required to defend why they should be allowed to married and the state must specifically address why they shouldn't if they are trying to prevent them despite rulings that marriage is a right and giving that right to other groups, those other groups would be required to support why they should be allowed to marry including countering any arguments the state has to prevent their unions.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #38
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

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

    The more I observe these kinds of debates, the more I begin to believe the argument that the early church really did target the most ignorant people for their message and tailored it just for them.
    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.

  9. #39
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    The more I observe these kinds of debates, the more I begin to believe the argument that the early church really did target the most ignorant people for their message and tailored it just for them.
    If I were looking to get rich and control a population a few thousand years ago, these books are exactly what I would write.
    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.

  10. #40
    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
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

    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?

    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-
    What I find in this case is that the supporters of prop 8 agreed to let Walker preside over the case knowing that he was gay. They could have asked for a different judge and used these arguements to state why he should have to recuse himself before the trial. But they didn't, they let him be the judge. Again, knowing that he was gay.

    In anycase according to Judge Ware, Walkers ruling will not be thrown out.

    Judge's Prop. 8 ruling upheld
    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

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •