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

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

Hicup said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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..

Click to expand...

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-

Click to expand...

Friday this week is the start of my work week.

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

CriticalThought said:

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

Supreme Court, here we come.

Click to expand...

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?

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

MaggieD said:

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?

Click to expand...

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-

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

Hicup said:

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-

Click to expand...

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.

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

1 Easy Target said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

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-

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

Hicup said:

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-

Click to expand...

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.

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

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

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-

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

Hicup said:

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-

Click to expand...

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.

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

Hicup said:

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-

Click to expand...

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.

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

Hicup said:

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-

Click to expand...

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.

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

Hicup said:

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-

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

CriticalThought said:

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.

Click to expand...

If I were looking to get rich and control a population a few thousand years ago, these books are exactly what I would write.

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

Hicup said:

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-

Click to expand...

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

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

Kal'Stang said:

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

Click to expand...

It may very well turn out that way, Kal. My arguments were in direct relation to how I interpret the law as it is written. I think it isn't unreasonable to suspect a strong degree of non-impartiality in this case. I'm not privy to all the details, nor does it interest me so much that I would spend a great deal of time on it, but on the surface I think that Walker should have recused himself.


Tim-

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

Hicup said:

It may very well turn out that way, Kal. My arguments were in direct relation to how I interpret the law as it is written. I think it isn't unreasonable to suspect a strong degree of non-impartiality in this case. I'm not privy to all the details, nor does it interest me so much that I would spend a great deal of time on it, but on the surface I think that Walker should have recused himself.


Tim-

Click to expand...

Being gay does not make you biased any more than being black, jewish, or short does. Assumption of bias in the absence of evidence is itself being unreasonable.

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

"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."

Agreed, this isn't over. He should have said he was a gay transgender man; it might have confused everyone so much they'd all give up.

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

Deuce said:

Being gay does not make you biased any more than being black, jewish, or short does. Assumption of bias in the absence of evidence is itself being unreasonable.

Click to expand...

What about being radically gay? And.. How does one know?


Tim-

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

Hicup said:

What about being radically gay? And.. How does one know?


Tim-

Click to expand...

Radically gay? How can you be radically gay? The guy is a homosexual. That's how he was born. That does not mean he cannot impartially rule on legal cases.

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

Hicup said:

It may very well turn out that way, Kal. My arguments were in direct relation to how I interpret the law as it is written. I think it isn't unreasonable to suspect a strong degree of non-impartiality in this case. I'm not privy to all the details, nor does it interest me so much that I would spend a great deal of time on it, but on the surface I think that Walker should have recused himself.


Tim-

Click to expand...

Except you fail to understand the law, and you fail to understand why he did not recuse himself, and you fail to understand why he was upheld in not recusing himself. You seem to think that it's a case that involves somehow gays, and he is gay, so he should not rule. However, this means that since the case involved marriage, a married person could not rule. And since the argument used by those defending Prop 8 was that SSM hurt all marriages, there is actually a clearer conflict of interest if the defense of prop 8 is right, with any married judge.

What you keep not showing is how this is a conflict of interest, and how it affected his ruling. As long as this is the case, you have no case. Repeating the same thing again and again with no evidence does not make you right.

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

Hicup said:

What about being radically gay? And.. How does one know?


Tim-

Click to expand...

What about being radically strait? How does one know?

Really, really weak argument.

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

I'm radically straight.. And why do you spell the word straight, strait? Can you tell I'm radically straight?


Tim-

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

1 Easy Target said:

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?

Click to expand...

The difference there is that Thomas has experienced finical gain from being biased. Its not likely he would vote differently even if that wasn't the case though. I tell you what, I won't ask him to recuse himself if you don't ask Kagan.

Hicup said:

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-

Click to expand...

Your argument doesn't hold because he didn't get married to his partner when prop 8 wasn't in effect, but had been with him for years. There are a lot of gay people, especially in California, who actually pride themselves on the fact that they never intend to get married, legally or other wise, because it is a heterosexual institution, to them.

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

xpiher said:

Your argument doesn't hold because he didn't get married to his partner when prop 8 wasn't in effect, but had been with him for years. There are a lot of gay people, especially in California, who actually pride themselves on the fact that they never intend to get married, legally or other wise, because it is a heterosexual institution, to them.

Click to expand...

Walker is a libertarian. He made it very apparent during the trial with his questioning that he personally doesn't feel that government should be involved in marriage at all. One of my concerns during the trial was that he would make a ruling based on his personal feelings.

What I absolutely love about all this is people have absolutely no idea who Walker is. They hear he is gay and make so many assumptions about him and what he believes. I seriously doubt that Walker will ever marry his partner.