• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge’s personal life debated after gay ruling

disneydude said:
Why does a gay judge "have a dog in the fight" and a straight judge doesn't? That is an illogical argument.
Click to expand...

He could if (and I'm not saying he does) he has someone he wants to marry. That would be a conflict of interest.
 
Given the.... depth... of the right's focus on this issue, the prospect of Federal support for gay marriage in all of the U.S. is looking better and better.
 
Redress said:
The only way he "had a dog in the fight" is if he was wanting to marry some one of the same gender. You have, of course, some evidence of that. Come on Navy, just once you can prove a claim you make. Just once you can back up what you say.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
He could if (and I'm not saying he does) he has someone he wants to marry. That would be a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Great minds and stuff.
 
I have no doubt that Judge Walker is gay. However, let us add up the facts.

1. He was first nominated by Ronald Reagan.
2. His first nomination was defeated by Nancy Pelosi.
3. He was later confirmed by George Bush.
4. His confirmation was challenged by just about every gay rights group in California because he represented the Olympics against the Gay Olympics in a trademark case.
5. He is Republican.
6. His position on marriage has historically been that the government has no place in it.

So I welcome the far right making an issue out of him being gay. It really shows how weak their case against same sex marriage is when they would rather make baseless attacks against a judge than to go after the substance of his ruling.
 
CriticalThought said:
I have no doubt that Judge Walker is gay. However, let us add up the facts.

1. He was first nominated by Ronald Reagan.
2. His first nomination was defeated by Nancy Pelosi.
3. He was later confirmed by George Bush.
4. His confirmation was challenged by just about every gay rights group in California because he represented the Olympics against the Gay Olympics in a trademark case.
5. He is Republican.
6. His position on marriage has historically been that the government has no place in it.

So I welcome the far right making an issue out of him being gay. It really shows how weak their case against same sex marriage is when they would rather make baseless attacks against a judge than to go after the substance of his ruling.
Click to expand...
Obviously he is a Stealth Homosexual who has been lying in wait for almost thirty years for just this moment when he can implement the Militant Homosexual Agenda™ and usher in gay marriage.

:)screwy)
 
Coronado said:
Obviously he is a Stealth Homosexual who has been lying in wait for almost thirty years for just this moment when he can implement the Militant Homosexual Agenda™ and usher in gay marriage.

:)screwy)
Click to expand...

I no longer question the far right's insanity. In fact, if they don't say something crazy about people they don't like, then I get worried.
 
Coronado said:
Obviously he is a Stealth Homosexual who has been lying in wait for almost thirty years for just this moment when he can implement the Militant Homosexual Agenda™ and usher in gay marriage.

:)screwy)
Click to expand...

Not so screwy when you consider he may have the same new world order uberlord handlers that faked Obama's birth announcements and all.
 
The judge's personal life is irrelevant. Only the ruling matters.
 
Hicup said:
He made the right decision given the case presented to him by the State of CA. They did not argue the case well.


Tim-
Click to expand...

What would you have done differently? I've been waiting for years to hear a rational argument against same sex marriage, and so if you can provide one that the proponents missed in this case, I would love to hear it.
 
Zyphlin said:
Its just not fully the same without Nathan Explosion.
Click to expand...
I had to give him a rest. Neil Fallon's burning beard is pretty metal though, IMHO.
 
CriticalThought said:
What would you have done differently? I've been waiting for years to hear a rational argument against same sex marriage, and so if you can provide one that the proponents missed in this case, I would love to hear it.
Click to expand...

Well, you would have to start by changing the parameters of your argument, if you're the pro-traditional marriage type. One that can meet the requisite rational basis test.


Tim-
 
CriticalThought said:
I have no doubt that Judge Walker is gay. However, let us add up the facts.

1. He was first nominated by Ronald Reagan.
2. His first nomination was defeated by Nancy Pelosi.
3. He was later confirmed by George Bush.
4. His confirmation was challenged by just about every gay rights group in California because he represented the Olympics against the Gay Olympics in a trademark case.
5. He is Republican.
6. His position on marriage has historically been that the government has no place in it.

So I welcome the far right making an issue out of him being gay. It really shows how weak their case against same sex marriage is when they would rather make baseless attacks against a judge than to go after the substance of his ruling.
Click to expand...
How is any of this relevant?
 
Jetboogieman said:
So instead of finding intelligent arguments against the Judges ruling, the hard right calls him gay.
Click to expand...
How about this argument:

Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a Nation whose Constitution foresees democratic decisionmaking, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people? What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?
Click to expand...
-Justice Breyer, McDONALD v. CHICAGO
 
Goobieman said:
-Justice Breyer, McDONALD v. CHICAGO
Click to expand...

That is a rather verbose way of saying, "The people know better than a judge." My question for Justice Breyer is why we need him? Why do we even need an independent judiciary if the people always know better than the courts?

Furthermore, what does a case on the Right to bear arms have to do with same sex marriage?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
How about this argument:


-Justice Breyer, McDONALD v. CHICAGO
Click to expand...
So where in the Constitution does it say that rights are decided by majority vote?
 
CriticalThought said:
Furthermore, what does a case on the Right to bear arms have to do with same sex marriage?
Click to expand...
His argument is that 'if the people decided (X), who is a judge to decide (not X)?'
Given the premise, the particulars of (X) dont really matter.

I'm just glad to see people disagree with one of the pillars of Breyer's dissent.
 
Goobieman said:
His argument is that 'if the people decided (X), who is a judge to decide (not X)?'
Given the premise, the particulars of (X) dont really matter.

I'm just glad to see people disagree with one of the pillars of Breyer's dissent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm definately against gun control. And arguing irrationally that the people know more than the courts about the law and the Constitution is pretty worthless. What does that have to do with same sex marriage?
 
CriticalThought said:
Yeah, I'm definately against gun control. And arguing irrationally that the people know more than the courts about the law and the Constitution is pretty worthless. What does that have to do with same sex marriage?
Click to expand...
I already explained that. The premise for the argument can be applied to both.
Of course, I'll bet the farm that if the Prop8 case made it before a court that Breyer sat on, he'd find no merit in his own argument.
 
1.) He was Appointed by Roland Regan, and was rejected by the Democrats for being too conservative.
2.) He was nominated again by George W Bush, but this time was able to serve for s chief judge of the Northern District of California.

To say, that he is biased because he is gay is a insult to his character as a Judge. It's basically saying, any judge that makes a ruling in favor of the gay population must be gay because it inverters with my thoughts about what morals are is just freaking insane.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
How about this argument:

Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a Nation whose Constitution foresees democratic decisionmaking, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people? What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?
-Justice Breyer, McDONALD v. CHICAGO
Click to expand...

It begs the question, since it presupposes the law in question is democratic (in the sense of our constitutional democracy).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom