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

[Red Dawn]

...seriously?

Yeah, I wasn't aware that there was a movement afoot to have him removed/impeached.

 

[K1052]

The ruling is correct however you are wrong. It would be more like saying that while slavery is in place a black judge is ruling on it or while women are denied the vote a female judge determines suffrage laws.

It's a conflict of interest and no gyrations can avoid that fact. It should have been decided by someone who could not have directly benefited, however I'm not going to have a cow about it.

It works in the other direction perfectly well on such a polarizing issue. Generally I think it would be difficult to find someone without some skin in the game until you reach the SC level.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is the nature of human to throw tar balls at those who disagree with the heard mentality. It's a way to cow others by making blanket statements. I haven't read the article so I don't know if the OP is correct or not, but based on past experience an objective approach isn't likely. That's not to say that wrongs aren't done, but what you say comes down to the Rush lyric "conform or be cast out".

We're contradictory creatures by nature.

Hay, the problem I see is not that he demands everybody believe as he does and not call him a bigot, but that he is a bigot because he can't argue for what he believes without going to the unexamined assumption, bigoted opinion, that being gay is bad. In short this idiot can only make absurd arguments to defend his bigotry. He can't argue logically and he is totally blind to that fact because his bigotry consists of the assumption he is right. He starts, stands in, and blindly continues to believe he is right regardless of reality.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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

So what's the purpose of this thread? Crying because someone decided to exercise their right? Do you cry when gays exercise their rights to pursue any rulings they disagree with thrown out?

 

[sactoking]

USC Title 28 Section 455: "a federal judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."[emphasis added]

It is not unreasonable to question a homosexual judge's impartiality in adjudicating a case involving homosexual rights. This constitutes a conflict of interest.

Of course, as any knowledgeable person will tell you, there is nothing inherently wrong with a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest only means that you have a vested interest in two or more outcomes which may be partially exclusive. Conflict of interest only becomes a problem when it is not disclosed to the other parties; such failure to disclose creates a de facto perception of compromised impartiality. Disclosure allows all parties to evaluate any proceedings through the appropriate context.

In this case, even if the judge did not believe he needed to recuse himself sua sponte, he did have a duty to disclose his conflict of interest. The disclosure would have allowed either party to the suit to petition for his recusal if sufficient evidence was presented that the judge could not maintain his impartiality. By refusing to disclose and disclosing now, post trial, the judge has created the reasonable perception that his ruling was not impartial and has given unnecessary ammunition to one side of the debate.

It's a complete and utter failure on the part of the judge and even though he is now retired, I assume he maintains his license to practice law. He should be questioned by his bar for ethics if that's the case.

 

[Moonbeam]

USC Title 28 Section 455: "a federal judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."[emphasis added]

It is not unreasonable to question a homosexual judge's impartiality in adjudicating a case involving homosexual rights. This constitutes a conflict of interest.

Of course, as any knowledgeable person will tell you, there is nothing inherently wrong with a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest only means that you have a vested interest in two or more outcomes which may be partially exclusive. Conflict of interest only becomes a problem when it is not disclosed to the other parties; such failure to disclose creates a de facto perception of compromised impartiality. Disclosure allows all parties to evaluate any proceedings through the appropriate context.

In this case, even if the judge did not believe he needed to recuse himself sua sponte, he did have a duty to disclose his conflict of interest. The disclosure would have allowed either party to the suit to petition for his recusal if sufficient evidence was presented that the judge could not maintain his impartiality. By refusing to disclose and disclosing now, post trial, the judge has created the reasonable perception that his ruling was not impartial and has given unnecessary ammunition to one side of the debate.

It's a complete and utter failure on the part of the judge and even though he is now retired, I assume he maintains his license to practice law. He should be questioned by his bar for ethics if that's the case.

You should be examined by medical authorities to determine if your not non compos mentis.

When a bigot looks at his bigotry he sees profound reason.

 

[jonks]

So what's the purpose of this thread? Crying because someone decided to exercise their right? Do you cry when gays exercise their rights to pursue any rulings they disagree with thrown out?

First amendment rights are extremely broad, giving citizens latitude to say almost whatever they want in almost any circumstance. This leads to people saying some controversial things which while legal remain nonetheless worthy topics of comment.

Accusing a judge of bias or conflict by motion is sufficiently rare in itself to warrant some news coverage. Add in that this is a highly controversial and publicized case, add to that the idiotic arguments they put forth, which taken to their logical conclusion would exclude every supreme court justice from hearing any case, and what you have is fodder for pundits, obsevers, politicos and yes, politics and news forums.

Anything else you need to know just ask.

 

[DivideBYZero]

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.

LOLWUT?!

Being a judge is a pretty kick-ass job, and I have NEVER heard of a judge having a hard time seeking employment. LMAO@YOUR ANALOGY! SEE IT BURN!

 

[Craig234]

Actually, I think they may have a point. He may have made the right decision but as a judge he needs to be impartial when he makes that decision. Impartiality of the legal system is a huge deal. The ruling needs to be made by someone doing it because its the right ruling to make, and not because it affects them personally.

I'm mildly surprised that he didn't abstain from taking the case. He must have known if this came out it could cause the case to be sent back to the courts, drawing out the process.

You frickin idiot. So heterosexuals aren't 'biased' for the law that heterosexual bigotry passes, but a gay judge is too biased?

That's like saying no black judge can rule on an issue involving white-favoring discrimination, because clearly, the whites will have no bias, only the blacks.

No female judge better ever rule on an issue involving violating females' rights! They're all biased! Only MEN can rule without bias on issues of men discriminating.

 

[jonks]

USC Title 28 Section 455: "a federal judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."[emphasis added]

It is not unreasonable to question a homosexual judge's impartiality in adjudicating a case involving homosexual rights.

Yes, it is.

"The problem is that this same logic could be applied to a straight, married judge hearing the case. After all, supporters of the same-sex marriage ban are arguing that marriage equality is so damaging to the institution of marriage that the government has a vital interest in making sure gays and lesbians can’t get married. That means that a straight, married judge couldn’t be expected to be impartial, either — after all, according to supporters of Prop 8, “the further deinstitutionalization of marriage caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage,” would directly impact married heterosexuals. Therefore, a heterosexual, married judge could be seen as having just as much “skin in the game” as Judge Walker." - WaPo

 

[Perknose]

Not agreeing with someones lifestyle is not a phobia. You hoople heads need to realize that disagreement has nothing to do with fear.

It's quite true that merely not agreeing with someone's lifestyle is indeed not a phobia. :thumbsup:

But fearing that another American's choice of a marriage partner will somehow taint the "sanctity" of yours pretty much defines an irrational phobia. Aiiiiieeee, Teh Gay, Teh Gay! D:

Only a true hoople head couldn't see this.

For all the rest of us, only a intellectually dishonest bigot trying to disguise their ugly bigotry would even try to not admit that attempting to use the power of the Federal government to prohibit other Americans from marrying the person of their choice, especially if they're otherwise militantly for "small government" and "only what the constitution specifically empowers the government to do," is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Hoople head. Intellectually dishonest bigot. Step up and take your pick.

 

[sactoking]

You should be examined by medical authorities to determine if your not non compos mentis.

When a bigot looks at his bigotry he sees profound reason.

Yes, I'm allowing myself to get sucked into a stupid Moonbeam post filled with no facts but hate for someone who disagrees.

First, you have no basis for calling me a bigot. You have no idea who I am and know nothing about my life or views. I could be in the KKK, I could be homosexual, the fact is you have no idea. You consistently throw around names and accusations that would be considered libelous, except for the fact that you don't even attempt to couch them in fact of any sort. You bring nothing constructive to a conversation, ever.

Without opining on the merits of Proposition 8 itself in either direction I explained that the United States Code requires Federal judges to maintain a reasonable facade of impartiality. I opined that the manner in which this particular judge handled the situation throws a reasonable doubt upon his impartiality.

The only thing potentially inflammatory was my statement that he should be questioned by his bar, which I think is appropriate given what I view as his disregard of USC both during trial and afterward.

 

[sactoking]

Yes, it is.

"The problem is that this same logic could be applied to a straight, married judge hearing the case. After all, supporters of the same-sex marriage ban are arguing that marriage equality is so damaging to the institution of marriage that the government has a vital interest in making sure gays and lesbians can’t get married. That means that a straight, married judge couldn’t be expected to be impartial, either — after all, according to supporters of Prop 8, “the further deinstitutionalization of marriage caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage,” would directly impact married heterosexuals. Therefore, a heterosexual, married judge could be seen as having just as much “skin in the game” as Judge Walker." - WaPo

No, it's not. You see, Judge Walker used another circumstance in which it is reasonable to question someone's impartiality to justify not questioning his impartiality. That's ass-backwards logic. If you're making a list of groups of people who potentially are not impartial the inclusion of someone on the list doesn't invalidate the list for everyone else.

Using the judge's failed logic if a single, homosexual person can reasonably questioned and a married heterosexual person can also be reasonably questioned then neither of them should be questioned. Where the hell did he come up with that?!? If a single, homosexual person can reasonably be questioned and a married heterosexual person can also be questioned then both of them should be questioned.

And here's the thing: questioning impartiality does not mean the judge gets recused. Questioning impartiality means that the issue is identified and addressed so that it becomes settled. As I originally stated a conflict of interest only becomes a problem when it is not disclosed and addressed. By applying his awful logic the judge refused to address the reasonable question of his impartiality, refused to disclose his conflict, refused to have his conflict addressed and settled, and perpetuated the perception that he "had something to hide".

 

[blackangst1]

You frickin idiot. So heterosexuals aren't 'biased' for the law that heterosexual bigotry passes, but a gay judge is too biased?

That's like saying no black judge can rule on an issue involving white-favoring discrimination, because clearly, the whites will have no bias, only the blacks.

No female judge better ever rule on an issue involving violating females' rights! They're all biased! Only MEN can rule without bias on issues of men discriminating.

I dont agree with you on many things, but this I do. You echoed my thoughts exactly.

 

[Craig234]

It's quite true that merely not agreeing with someone's lifestyle is indeed not a phobia. :thumbsup:

But fearing that another American's choice of a marriage partner will somehow taint the "sanctity" of yours pretty much defines an irrational phobia. Aiiiiieeee, Teh Gay, Teh Gay! D:

Only a true hoople head couldn't see this.

For all the rest of us, only a intellectually dishonest bigot trying to disguise their ugly bigotry would even try to not admit that attempting to use the power of the Federal government to prohibit other Americans from marrying the person of their choice, especially if they're otherwise militantly for "small government" and "only what the constitution specifically empowers the government to do," is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Hoople head. Intellectually dishonest bigot. Step up and take your pick.

Most bigots, in my experience, do not understand that they are bigots. Their brains perform gymnastics coming up with rationalizations for view even they don't understand why they're so passionate about, like people who 'just keep going back to a lover they know is terrible to them' they can't explain.

But once these people - some do - come to understand that they are bigoted, they seem to get a clear understanding of how wrong they were.

It just takes a lot to get them there.

I think it's usually a mistake to view them as what they appear to be, 'intellectually dishonest' intentionally to defend their bigotry. They're just broken.

The photos of the white crowds who gathered in the south to protest blacks going to school, who looked like 50's ozzie and harriet people, clean cut and innocent, except for their faces twisted into screaming hate, I think say a lot about how this works - it's shocking to see these people SO hateful against a group when all they're really fighting to do is continue terrible inequality, ready to get their guns and kill and bomb out of their hate - it's not rational and I bet most would not find it easy to explain later.

It is simplistic to use the word 'phobia' for bigotry, but there is a stronger connection than most of them understand with fear beneath their bigotry.

They latch so strongly on to 'morality' claims as the basis for their position simply because they need something to use that sounds better than hate.

This is why bigotry is sometimes called a social disease, a group of people all drowning in hate, blinded that they are as they all refer to phony issues, like 'states' rights'.

But seeing these sweet looking housewives in photos who had nothing better to do with an evening than attend a protest screaming in hateful fury near if not actually reaching violence against people who have done nothing to them - it says a lot about the problem of this hateful bigotry underlying whatever rationalization they're using, like 'defense of marriage'. I think they need to invent the 'attack' on marriage because they want to go to war on it out of hate, and need the 'attack' to justify it.

 

[jonks]

By applying his awful logic the judge refused to address the reasonable question of his impartiality, refused to disclose his conflict, refused to have his conflict addressed and settled, and perpetuated the perception that he "had something to hide".

Impartiality of a judge is of course a valid question. BUT, again, you assume the point you're trying to make, that his sexuality plays a role in his partiality. i.e. He's gay, so we should debate whether or not he can render a fair verdict on an issue involving sexuality. Yet there would be no need to discuss the impartiality of a heterosexual judge due to his heterosexuality.

No one is saying you cannot question a judge's impartiality, so don't conflate that issue with this one. What you cannot do is in an attempt to smear a judge or disagree with a verdict invent an impossible standard to satisfy under the rubric of "just asking questions." Applying such a standard, there can be no appearance of propriety involving a case on sexuality since all persons have some sexuality.

Your argument and theirs boils down to "He should have disclosed he was gay because that's relevant." And that's where you both fail.

 

[piasabird]

So there is no possibility that a Gay Judge may have a Gay Agenda????

What if he owned 2 million in stock for an Oil comany and he sat on a case against an oil company? It is the same thing.

 

[Wreckem]

It doesn't matter, the case was tried on the merits so the case will be reviewed on if he made an error of law. If he made no error of law they will not reverse him because he didn't recuse himself.

Plaintiffs had plenty of time to bring this up at trial. If they wanted to make this argument they should have done it before trial, and appealed the issue if denied. They say because he didn't reveal it. It was WELL KNOWN that he was gay. WELL KNOWN. It was discussed in the media. The lawyers involved with the case cannot legitimately claim they did not know he was gay. Anyone that actively followed the case knew the judge was gay.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, I'm allowing myself to get sucked into a stupid Moonbeam post filled with no facts but hate for someone who disagrees.

First, you have no basis for calling me a bigot. You have no idea who I am and know nothing about my life or views. I could be in the KKK, I could be homosexual, the fact is you have no idea. You consistently throw around names and accusations that would be considered libelous, except for the fact that you don't even attempt to couch them in fact of any sort. You bring nothing constructive to a conversation, ever.

Without opining on the merits of Proposition 8 itself in either direction I explained that the United States Code requires Federal judges to maintain a reasonable facade of impartiality. I opined that the manner in which this particular judge handled the situation throws a reasonable doubt upon his impartiality.

The only thing potentially inflammatory was my statement that he should be questioned by his bar, which I think is appropriate given what I view as his disregard of USC both during trial and afterward.

The only facade is that you are reasonable. You can't tell the difference between reasonable and your ass. You see through bigots eyes.

Why is the fact that a judge doesn't disclose his marital status at a divorce trial imply that he could have had undisclosed motives that would disqualify him from such a trial. He could be biased in favor of men if he is a unhappily married man, or anti-diverse because he's Catholic and didn't mention it. What has happened to you is that the bigot that lives in your ass sees the fact that a man is gay and has a partner to be a sign that he can't impartially judge the matter of gay marriage when any other judge would bring some similar bias to the table. A straight judge is clearly unfit to judge gay marriage by the absurd standard you want to use. No, you are a bigot and see with bigot blindness.

By the way, I don't hate you because you are a bigot. You can't help but be. It's you who hates yourself because you are one and being told so just brings that hate to the surface. You hate bigots, not me, and that is why you don't want to cure yourself. You would first have to see how much you see yourself as an asshole. I see you as a person with a treatable mental condition who is in need of somebody like myself who can show you the truth of your condition.

 

[blackangst1]

So there is no possibility that a Gay Judge may have a Gay Agenda????

What if he owned 2 million in stock for an Oil comany and he sat on a case against an oil company? It is the same thing.

What is a gay agenda exactly? And even if so, should we then question a married judges decisions in divorce cases? Or a childless judge in a custody case? Come on. Now, if you show the judge was some kind of wacko activist, there might be a point. But implying that because he's gay he might have a gay agenda is no more of a stretch than saying a white judge has a white agenda.

 

[Wreckem]

So there is no possibility that a Gay Judge may have a Gay Agenda????

What if he owned 2 million in stock for an Oil comany and he sat on a case against an oil company? It is the same thing.

You have to object to the judge hearing the case. They should have brought this up at trial if they want to bring it up. They are now claiming they didn't know he was gay when the fact of the matter is they did know.

The trial was decided on the merits. Appellate courts are not going to overturn it if they do not find an error of law. Him being gay does not make him anymore biased than anyone else. I'm sorry, the courts just are not going to overturn the case because he didn't recuse himself.

Racist white judges didn't recuse themselves in the civil rights era. They weren't overturned because of lack of recusal. Most were never directly over turned either.

 

[Wreckem]

No, it's not. You see, Judge Walker used another circumstance in which it is reasonable to question someone's impartiality to justify not questioning his impartiality. That's ass-backwards logic. If you're making a list of groups of people who potentially are not impartial the inclusion of someone on the list doesn't invalidate the list for everyone else.

Using the judge's failed logic if a single, homosexual person can reasonably questioned and a married heterosexual person can also be reasonably questioned then neither of them should be questioned. Where the hell did he come up with that?!? If a single, homosexual person can reasonably be questioned and a married heterosexual person can also be questioned then both of them should be questioned.

And here's the thing: questioning impartiality does not mean the judge gets recused. Questioning impartiality means that the issue is identified and addressed so that it becomes settled. As I originally stated a conflict of interest only becomes a problem when it is not disclosed and addressed. By applying his awful logic the judge refused to address the reasonable question of his impartiality, refused to disclose his conflict, refused to have his conflict addressed and settled, and perpetuated the perception that he "had something to hide".

How did he hide he was gay? It was well known, and known to every lawyer in the case that he was gay. This is just an end run to try and get a case thrown out. It won't happen.

I have no idea why people are trying to question is impartiality. This isn't his first "gay rights" case he has decided. Here is a clue, he has gone against gays more than he has gone for them, which is probably the real reason why the lawyers didn't object to him hearing the case.

 

[Zen0]

What is a gay agenda exactly? And even if so, should we then question a married judges decisions in divorce cases? Or a childless judge in a custody case? Come on. Now, if you show the judge was some kind of wacko activist, there might be a point. But implying that because he's gay he might have a gay agenda is no more of a stretch than saying a white judge has a white agenda.

Our Agenda is clear... You better hide your wife, hide your kids, hide your husband too 'cuz we be making everybody out here fabulous.

 

[Craig234]

So there is no possibility that a Gay Judge may have a Gay Agenda????

What if he owned 2 million in stock for an Oil comany and he sat on a case against an oil company? It is the same thing.

As I said:

[Bigots'] brains perform gymnastics coming up with rationalizations for views even they don't understand why they're so passionate about...

This poster posted utter idiocy and he's blind to it because he's driven by bigotry.

 

[sactoking]

Your argument and theirs boils down to "He should have disclosed he was gay because that's relevant." And that's where you both fail.

You make a compelling case, I appreciate that. Where I still disagree is that there was no relevant factor to disclose. From the judge's own words, as quoted earlier, he did not contend that there was no issue, he contended that because others would also have issues he need not disclose his.

The relevance of his sexuality is an interesting topic. What I take as the basic tenet of your statement, that his sexuality does not bias him as a judge, I agree with. A homosexual judge presiding over a case with homosexual and heterosexual appellants is no more biased than a caucasian judge with caucasian and asian appellants; that is to say there is no reasonable standard to say 'white judges find for white pleas' or 'gay judges find for gay pleas'.

Where I tend to disagree still is that the Federal standard calls for a recusal review not when bias is an issue but when conflict is an issue. Sandra Day O'Conner generally recused herself from SC cases involving Telecom companies because she owned telecom stock and could be seen as "profiting" based on her rulings. Elena Kagan is somewhat expected to recuse herself from any potential PPACA action because she was Solicitor General. The antitrust lawsuit the NFLPA filed against the NFL bounced around Federal judges for a couple days b/c the judges constantly recused themselves because they had in their employ people that had previously litigated against or on behalf of the NFL. Walker could reasonably be perceived as "profiting" from his ruling by overturning Prop 8 and allowing himself to marry. Social aspects aside, there are legitimate economic advantages to being married.

Contrary to the perception of some of the more hateful posters here I have never maintained that the judge's ruling was incorrect or that he should not have heard the case. My sole contention has been that his refusal to address the issue in a proper fashion was inappropriate.