Homophobic bigots want judge ruling thrown out because he is gay.

[Zen0]

And because of that, I agree that his decision should be thrown out...let the new judge review the case.
That's what they're asking.

Of course, since it's a bunch of crazy fundies who are pushing this, if a 100% straight judge reaffirms the ruling, they'll be protesting that as well.

A pattern of homophobic and racist posts are all that seem to be in common with this poster...

In any case, purely as a legal precedent, there is some rationale for letting a straight judge decide on the case. That would be more for politics than reason, of course, because a sound logical argument is objective and independently verifiable, making the source of the argument - gay, straight, alien, robotic etc ,irrelevant.

Ultimately, it makes little difference because the case is going to the Supreme Court anyway.

Practically, it makes a big difference in delaying gay marriage for Californians. The more years the Conservatives can prevent it, the bigger their victory will be. That really comes down the only measure of their victory, because gay marriage will happen eventually throughout the US, it's just a matter of how long it takes.

 

[Bignate603]

What I posted is just the tip of the iceberg if every judge who could possibly have even the slightest potential personal bias by race, creed, or economic status was forced to recuse themselves.

We aren't talking about bias, we are talking about conflict of interest. A white woman may be biased in favor of other white women but that's not a legal conflict of interest because the judge does not benefit directly from the ruling. An example of a conflict of interest is something like a judge ruling on a trial involving a company that they own stock in. Ruling in favor of the company benefits the judge.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think the people whom you question are merely stating that there is the ability to remain objective. You could apply the logic being used here against this judge to many many scenarios that would essentially recuse all judges from a vast array of cases.

I think that a great many judges should recuse themselves far more often when there is the potential for substantial personal gain. That's what conflict of interest is. It has nothing to do with impartiality but rather that the decision itself is less likely to appear free from bias. A judge forces his opinion onto the public and it is important that a decision be as free from the appearance of self interest as reasonably possible.

 

[PokerGuy]

If you filed suit against company X for a bazillion dollars, and the company would likely go out of business if you won your suit, would you feel comfortable if the judge ruling on the suit was a major stockholder in company X? No. Same idea here. The judge obviously has a major personal stake in the ruling, clearly a conflict of interest.

 

[jackstar7]

404 Conflict not found.


I find times like these you find out who doesn't really like the judicial branch.

 

[DivideBYZero]

That is NOT the same thing, why do people keep saying that.

If I am a white female and I am presented a case where a white female killed a black male, I'm not going to rule in favor of the female just becasue she is a white female. I have no gain either way, thus I look at the facts and only the facts.

In this case, the judge clearly gains from the decision.

Do I agree with the judges decision, absolutely. But, he should not have been the one to make that decision.

Jesus, you're dense. What does the Judge have to 'gain' from this, apart from the pleasure of joining the unemployment queue if he just chooses the verdict based upon his choice? He's paid to look at only facts, but you claim because he's Gay he cannot do that in this case. That's just straight up prejudice, yet you're too blind to see it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Those damn homophobes! How dare they question this judge's ruling...there is no doubt that his motives had no bearing and were pure as the driven snow. Silly lawyers....silly homophobic lawyers.

 

[DivideBYZero]

If you filed suit against company X for a bazillion dollars, and the company would likely go out of business if you won your suit, would you feel comfortable if the judge ruling on the suit was a major stockholder in company X? No. Same idea here. The judge obviously has a major personal stake in the ruling, clearly a conflict of interest.

No he fucking doesn't. There is no financial gain and he may not even want gay marriage, or want to get married even if he could. Not all hetero couples marry, do they? No, because not all heteros give a hoot about marriage. Somehow the gay-haters have the idea in their heads that because he's gay he's going to be all militant about it. What an idiotic interpretation of all gay people.

 

[Zen0]

I think that a great many judges should recuse themselves far more often when there is the potential for substantial personal gain. That's what conflict of interest is. It has nothing to do with impartiality but rather that the decision itself is less likely to appear free from bias. A judge forces his opinion onto the public and it is important that a decision be as free from the appearance of self interest as reasonably possible.

A conflict of interest is only relevant when a decision is based not on hard-lined reason but loose interpretations and "spiritual intents".

You said it best, this is essentially politics. It is important to be free of the APPEARANCE of self interest, mostly so there are less avenues for dissent.

Realistically, this is simply a stall tactic for the conservatives. If they succeed, it will in fact be far more damaging to Gays living California who want to marry, since they will have to go another 5 or 10 years before having the rights of straight couples, things people take for granted like hospital visitation, estate rights etc.

 

[jackstar7]

Quoting a poster on another board:

"Still, using their argument, Thurgood Marshall should have had to recuse himself from cases involving the 14th Amendment, because he had a vested interest in not being property."

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

A similar argument could be mustered for any judge deciding on Federal laws, couldn't it? A judge has to be a citizen to be a judge, and Federal laws affect all citizens, meaning no judge could ever be free of conflicts of interest.

Seems like it would bring the justice system to a screeching halt.

 

[Vikki]

His sexual preference was released during the trial by a news paper, and neither side asked him to step down or excuse himself after. They only want his ruling changed after the verdict didn't fall in their favor. Seems a bit late to me. If they thought he couldn't be fair and honest when the news first came out, they should have asked during the course of it all, not when they get a ruling that they didn't like.

 

[Red Dawn]

If the Judge had been a Fund A Mental Case should he have recused himself?

 

[jonks]

Opponents argue that gay marriage UNDERMINES THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA and threatens to destroy the fabric of the country. So tell me please, how a hetero judge, knowing what is on the line in this fight, could possibly be impartial? Clearly a hetero judge would HAVE to rule against gay marriage to preserve the union. It would be impossible for him to be impartial or unbiased because he would have so much to lose by granting gays the right to marry, thus his hands would be tied before he even started the trial. I mean, the very country is at stake! Any hetero judge should recuse himself/herself if they were assigned this case. No one who has so much on the line could possibly rule fairly.

You fucking idiots.

The opponents argument is stupid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...y-and-desperate/2011/03/04/AFLxZ5pE_blog.html

The only possible resolution: Animal Judges:

http://www.donkeylicious.com/2011/04/proposition-8-and-animal-judges.html

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The last I checked the people that want the ruling thrown out have the RIGHT to request said action. If their request is turned down or the ruling by the judge is shown to be incorrect, so be it.

 

[QuantumPion]

In other news, racist liberals still want Clarence Thomas kicked off the supreme court for being a black conservative.

 

[Red Dawn]

In other news, racist liberals still want Clarence Thomas kicked off the supreme court for being a black conservative.

Link?

 

[wuliheron]

The last I checked the people that want the ruling thrown out have the RIGHT to request said action. If their request is turned down or the ruling by the judge is shown to be incorrect, so be it.

Yeah, and at one time people had the RIGHT to own slaves and beat their wives with sticks. I demand my RIGHTS!

 

[jonks]

The last I checked the people that want the ruling thrown out have the RIGHT to request said action. If their request is turned down or the ruling by the judge is shown to be incorrect, so be it.

Did anyone say they didn't have the right to do this or that doing this is fucking stupid for reasons 1-5?

 

[actuarial]

You're confusing bias with conflict of interest. One would hope that judges have no biases, but we know this is never the case. However, there is an obvious difference between growing up in a pro-gun or anti-gun household and owning stock in a gun manufacturing or sitting on the board of an anti-gun organization. The later cases involve personal or financial gain and are a conflict of interest.

No I'm not confusing it. I just don't think that this is anywhere near the realm of conflict of interest necessary to recuse yourself.

A non-white judge would have the exact same conflict on interest when ruling on an affirmative action law - it could potentially benefit them in the future when applying for a job.

Same with a woman of child bearing age on an abortion law - they may want to have an abortion in the future.

How about a gun owner ruling on a second amendment case?

Their only objection is that this man MAY want to marry his partner in the future, no different than the future possibility of being able to exercise the other rights mentioned above.

 

[QuantumPion]

Link?

...seriously?

 

[MotF Bane]

From the OP's article:

Because he's never disavowed the possibility? Seems like a bit of a reach.

Hey Bane, because you've never disavowed the possibility of being wrong about this, does that prove you are indeed wrong? :biggrin:

I may indeed be wrong, but I think it would have made this simpler had he recused himself, because of course the bigots were going to look to appeal the ruling. It's the right ruling, but had he recused himself, it'd provide one less avenue for appeal. Is it unfortunate that his sexual preferences would then have denied him the chance to work on such an important case? Yes.

Admittedly, the higher courts can simply ignore the complaints, and this whole thing becomes irrelevant, and we can all go ahead and laugh at the homophobes.

 

[AstroManLuca]

No I'm not confusing it. I just don't think that this is anywhere near the realm of conflict of interest necessary to recuse yourself.

A non-white judge would have the exact same conflict on interest when ruling on an affirmative action law - it could potentially benefit them in the future when applying for a job.

Same with a woman of child bearing age on an abortion law - they may want to have an abortion in the future.

How about a gun owner ruling on a second amendment case?

Their only objection is that this man MAY want to marry his partner in the future, no different than the future possibility of being able to exercise the other rights mentioned above.

Using homophobe logic, though, you could make the case that any straight judge would have a conflict of interest in this case as well.

Homophobes state that allowing gay marriage is an "attack on traditional marriage." They claim that their main reason for being opposed to gay marriage is because it actively hurts straight marriage, because they can't just say "we think being gay is wrong" (even if they do). Therefore, according to them, a straight person should feel threatened by gay marriage and can't make an impartial decision either.

A pro-gun activist vs. an anti-gun activist ruling on a 2nd amendment case would be equally biased, so the ultimate solution in that case is to find someone who has no personal stake in the issue. Therefore we need to get some asexual judges to rule on the gay marriage issue

LOL I completely missed jonks' post about the same thing!

 

[D1gger]

Opponents argue that gay marriage UNDERMINES THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA and threatens to destroy the fabric of the country. So tell me please, how a hetero judge, knowing what is on the line in this fight, could possibly be impartial? Clearly a hetero judge would HAVE to rule against gay marriage to preserve the union. It would be impossible for him to be impartial or unbiased because he would have so much to lose by granting gays the right to marry, thus his hands would be tied before he even started the trial. I mean, the very country is at stake! Any hetero judge should recuse himself/herself if they were assigned this case. No one who has so much on the line could possibly rule fairly.

You fucking idiots.

The opponents argument is stupid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...y-and-desperate/2011/03/04/AFLxZ5pE_blog.html

The only possible resolution: Animal Judges:

http://www.donkeylicious.com/2011/04/proposition-8-and-animal-judges.html

You are clearly overlooking the obvious solution --- Robot Judges. I want to have Bender ruling on this case. :sneaky:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The last I checked the people that want the ruling thrown out have the RIGHT to request said action. If their request is turned down or the ruling by the judge is shown to be incorrect, so be it.

Agree. Lawyers being lawyers...imagine that!

Chalk this one up as Inane Political Outrage #10492384645238256278.