Virginia: Judge Rejected ... why?

[jackstar7]

Really, Virginia?

Looks like this Navy Vet and accomplished prosecutor will not be moved to the bench because he's openly gay.

Well, that's how it looks... maybe someone has another reason? Anyone?

But his nomination came under fire late last week, as the Family Foundation and Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, stoked fears that the 45-year-old attorney would allow his sexual orientation to influence his judicial decisions.

Super classy, idiots.

 

[Rainsford]

Why is it that organizations with "Family" in the name only show up when they're going after gay people? If they were so pro-Family, it seems like there are a number of other areas that would be a better use of their time.

 

[theeedude]

Why is it that organizations with "Family" in the name only show up when they're going after gay people? If they were so pro-Family, it seems like there are a number of other areas that would be a better use of their time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R66N4acBbk

 

[nageov3t]

I can understand their logic.

but I have a nagging suspicion that it's not applied equally or fairly when Evangelical nominees are in the same situation.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I can understand their logic.

Great! Please explain it to me?

 

[sactoking]

Great! Please explain it to me?

The legislative vetting process isn't supposed to be a rubber-stamp; if the legislators have questions about someone's impartiality that cannot be overcome they should not vote to confirm.

Whether this particular issue legitimately falls under that scenario is a matter of perception.

 

[jackstar7]

I can understand their logic.

but I have a nagging suspicion that it's not applied equally or fairly when Evangelical nominees are in the same situation.

I don't imagine it's applied to straight nominees...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Whether this particular issue legitimately falls under that scenario is a matter of perception.

Yes, that's the part that isn't making any sense.

If there's a problem with a homosexual "allow[ing] his sexual orientation to influence his judicial decisions", then why is there not a problem with heterosexuals doing so?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yes, that's the part that isn't making any sense.

If there's a problem with a homosexual "allow[ing] his sexual orientation to influence his judicial decisions", then why is there not a problem with heterosexuals doing so?

My thought

 

[Rainsford]

Yes, that's the part that isn't making any sense.

If there's a problem with a homosexual "allow[ing] his sexual orientation to influence his judicial decisions", then why is there not a problem with heterosexuals doing so?

Agreed with you and EagleKeeper. Certainly judicial impartiality is something that should be examined. But in this case the only evidence for impartiality seems to be that the judge in question is gay.

 

[sactoking]

Yes, that's the part that isn't making any sense.

If there's a problem with a homosexual "allow[ing] his sexual orientation to influence his judicial decisions", then why is there not a problem with heterosexuals doing so?

Not speaking for myself but instead for what I understand the Virginia Republicans' position to be:
From a very strict interpretation a homosexual would have the potential for bias in hearing a case in re same-sex marriage or some other equal protection issues while technically a heterosexual would not have those same biases. Strictly speaking a heterosexual's biases in that regard would stem not from their sexuality but instead from their religious or moral convictions which are, technically, separate. In other words heterosexuals and homosexuals presiding over a matter of same-sex marriage would appear to be two sides of the same coin but they really are not.

You'll forgive the crude comparisons but you wouldn't want a white supremacist or a misogynist presiding over equal protection cases, and would likely deny them a seat on the bench. Maybe a less offensive comparison would be that you wouldn't want the judge in the Apple/Samsung patent dispute to own a few hundred million shares of Apple stock.

Again, that's just what I understand the position to be and not an endorsement.

 

[sactoking]

Agreed with you and EagleKeeper. Certainly judicial impartiality is something that should be examined. But in this case the only evidence for impartiality seems to be that the judge in question is gay.

I also agree. I think the underlying principle (judicial impartiality) is correct but the specific application is without merit.

 

[Rainsford]

Not speaking for myself but instead for what I understand the Virginia Republicans' position to be:
From a very strict interpretation a homosexual would have the potential for bias in hearing a case in re same-sex marriage or some other equal protection issues while technically a heterosexual would not have those same biases. Strictly speaking a heterosexual's biases in that regard would stem not from their sexuality but instead from their religious or moral convictions which are, technically, separate. In other words heterosexuals and homosexuals presiding over a matter of same-sex marriage would appear to be two sides of the same coin but they really are not.

The argument from many people opposed to gay marriage is that it actually damages straight marriage. A heterosexual who believes that would certainly have a bias directly related to their sexual preference in that case.

You'll forgive the crude comparisons but you wouldn't want a white supremacist or a misogynist presiding over equal protection cases, and would likely deny them a seat on the bench. Maybe a less offensive comparison would be that you wouldn't want the judge in the Apple/Samsung patent dispute to own a few hundred million shares of Apple stock.

Again, that's just what I understand the position to be and not an endorsement.

But isn't this case like assuming that all white people were white supremacists because of their skin color? Certainly we don't want white supremacist judges, but shouldn't we have evidence of such a racial bias before throwing them out because they're white and thus COULD have a bias?

Edit: I know you're not supporting their argument or anything, but it seems like their REAL argument is that "gays can't be impartial".

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Edit: I know you're not supporting their argument or anything, but it seems like their REAL argument is that "gays can't be impartial".

I don't even think it's that complicated.

It boils down simply: they want judges who are biased the same way they are.

 

[nageov3t]

Great! Please explain it to me?

it's not just that he's gay, he's also involved with gay rights groups.... so I can understand why someone might question his capacity to leave behind his personal feelings on legal issues of gay rights, but I highly, highly doubt that same standard is applied to heterosexual nominees.

 

[Phokus]

Not speaking for myself but instead for what I understand the Virginia Republicans' position to be:
From a very strict interpretation a homosexual would have the potential for bias in hearing a case in re same-sex marriage or some other equal protection issues while technically a heterosexual would not have those same biases. Strictly speaking a heterosexual's biases in that regard would stem not from their sexuality but instead from their religious or moral convictions which are, technically, separate. In other words heterosexuals and homosexuals presiding over a matter of same-sex marriage would appear to be two sides of the same coin but they really are not.

You'll forgive the crude comparisons but you wouldn't want a white supremacist or a misogynist presiding over equal protection cases, and would likely deny them a seat on the bench. Maybe a less offensive comparison would be that you wouldn't want the judge in the Apple/Samsung patent dispute to own a few hundred million shares of Apple stock.

Again, that's just what I understand the position to be and not an endorsement.

I like how your archetypical white male gets a pass on everything.

You could also apply the logic as so a few decades ago: "Woah, we can't have a black judge, he'd most likely rule that blacks have a choice to sit at the FRONT of the bus! He'd be biased!"

 

[Moonbeam]

Get used to bigots having bigot logic. Bigots are bigots because they are unable to reason.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, that's the part that isn't making any sense.

If there's a problem with a homosexual "allow[ing] his sexual orientation to influence his judicial decisions", then why is there not a problem with heterosexuals doing so?

Because heterosexuality doesnt influence their judicial decisions? And the concept of being an open heterosexual doesnot make sense?

 

[CrackRabbit]

it's not just that he's gay, he's also involved with gay rights groups.... so I can understand why someone might question his capacity to leave behind his personal feelings on legal issues of gay rights, but I highly, highly doubt that same standard is applied to heterosexual nominees.

Shouldn't he simply be able to recuse himself from cases involving that then?

Wait, wasn't Virgina the place where a judge fairly recently had an almost undeniable conflict of interest and ruled in in a way that benefited him?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Because heterosexuality doesnt influence their judicial decisions?

How do you know that?

If the process is designed to favor heterosexuals over homosexuals -- and clearly it is -- would it not stand to reason that it might lead to candidates who are biased in that regard?

 

[shortylickens]

Virginia has a strange mix of ultra-libs and ultra-conservatives. When it comes to things like judges and courts they usually swing towards the religious right.

 

[nehalem256]

How do you know that?

If the process is designed to favor heterosexuals over homosexuals -- and clearly it is -- would it not stand to reason that it might lead to candidates who are biased in that regard?

Well for instance this from the article:

Thorne-Begland, a decorated officer and fighter pilot -- came out as a gay Naval officer 20 years ago to challenge the military's now-defunct "don't ask don't tell" policy. His announcement resulted in his honorable discharge from the Navy. Between 2002 and 2006, he also served on the board of Equality Virginia, a nonprofit gay rights group.

I can see why people might think he would be biased.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Yes, that's the part that isn't making any sense.

If there's a problem with a homosexual "allow[ing] his sexual orientation to influence his judicial decisions", then why is there not a problem with heterosexuals doing so?

It's because gay men are slaves to their urges while straight men are able to keep their homosexual urges at bay.

 

[glenn1]

I like how your archetypical white male gets a pass on everything.

You could also apply the logic as so a few decades ago: "Woah, we can't have a black judge, he'd most likely rule that blacks have a choice to sit at the FRONT of the bus! He'd be biased!"

Why not? Democrats basically did just that when they filibustered Miguel Estrada not even a decade ago. So it's fair when (D)s reject a latino dude, but then it happens to a gay dude it becomes a problem?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I can see why people might think he would be biased.

The problem is that the standard being applied to him is not being applied to anyone else.

I doubt there are many judges who have never expressed vocal opinions or taken stands on various matters.