Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

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

  1. #1
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

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

    Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge rules - latimes.com

    A federal judge on Tuesday refused to invalidate last year's ruling against Proposition 8, deciding the gay jurist who overturned the same-sex marriage ban had no obligation to step aside because of a possible conflict of interest.

    The decision by Chief Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco left the ruling by retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker in place. Walker’s decision remains on hold pending a separate appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Walker, 67, an openly gay judge, told reporters after he retired in February that he and his partner, a physician, have been together for 10 years. ProtectMarriage, the proponent of Proposition 8, said Walker should have disclosed that prior to trial, and it asked Ware to throw out his ruling.
    Supreme Court, here we come.
    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.

  2. #2
    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
    What I don't get is the part about "disclosing this prior to the trial." I knew myself, well before the trial started, that he had a partner for a long time. It wasn't secret information.
    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.

  3. #3
    Educator

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-08-11 @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,235

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

    Would a black guy have to recuse himself if another black guy is being charged with a crime? I don't think so.

  4. #4
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,585
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gargantuan View Post
    Would a black guy have to recuse himself if another black guy is being charged with a crime? I don't think so.
    Exactly. To state that a gay judge could not fairly interpret the law because he is gay is ludicrous and insulting. It's all part of trying to keep the discrimination of homosexuals legal, and deny them equal treatment under the law.

  5. #5
    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 DiAnna View Post
    Exactly. To state that a gay judge could not fairly interpret the law because he is gay is ludicrous and insulting. It's all part of trying to keep the discrimination of homosexuals legal, and deny them equal treatment under the law.
    Worse, the idea that a gay judge could not fairly interpret the law on a gay rights case also invalidates a core argument of the Prop 8 supporters. If a gay judge cannot rule on a case because he has something to gain or lose, this would require finding a judge without something to gain or lose from the ruling. A straight judge.

    Straight judges, therefore have nothing to gain or lose from homosexuals being allowed to marry. Torpedoing the whole idea that there's an attack on marriage if two dudes get hitched.
    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. #6
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

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

    If a "gay" judge would have to recuse himself....then a "straight" judge would have to as well. They both would "Seemingly" have the same type of interest in the case.

    This is just the right-wing bigots as their worst desperation.....nothing more....nothing less.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  7. #7
    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 disneydude View Post
    If a "gay" judge would have to recuse himself....then a "straight" judge would have to as well. They both would "Seemingly" have the same type of interest in the case.

    This is just the right-wing bigots as their worst desperation.....nothing more....nothing less.
    No, no, a straight judge is ok because he has nothing to lose. We should definitely allow this argument.
    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.

  8. #8
    Educator

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-08-11 @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,235

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

    Anddd the rightys are no where to be found to attempt to justify that.

  9. #9
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

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

    This is the correct decision here. He should've no more been expected to recuse himself than had it been an evangelical christian that was hearing the case instead.

  10. #10
    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

    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.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •