Rainsford said:
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.
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?
Ahh, but that's the fine distinction I tried to make earlier: the bias of the heterosexuals does not stem inherently from being heterosexual, but instead stems from religion or morals. This is why you (occasionally) hear about the stereotypical self-hating Christian homosexual. IIRC one of the articles I saw indicated that the legislators who voted no said they did so because this particular candidate had a fairly activist background. Whether that is true or not I don't know but if it is it would at least add a shred of credibility to their concern that he might not adjudicate an issue without bias.
CharlesKozierok said:
It boils down simply: they want judges who are biased the same way they are.
Very much true.
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!"
I couldn't include a sample of every single demographic possibility. Hell, you could say that the misogynist category would encompass the "stereotypical white male".
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?
I believe in most (all?) instances recusal is a matter of the honor system and appellate courts are very hesitant to overturn a ruling based on recusal. So long as he openly announced his apparent conflict I doubt any could force him to recuse himself. (And there's a case to be made that even a hidden conflict wouldn't merit recusal, see: CA Prop 8 judge)
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?
Quite possibly, but you have to dig down to see if the bias is resultant from the inherent favorable position or from some other factor.
Let's say that white males were in a position of power in the early to mid 20th century. Women and minorities were oppressed. Were the white males oppressing them doing so because they were white males? No, they were doing so because they were racist/sexist. If the oppression stemmed solely from being a white male then no white male would have supported change. So to say that heterosexuality and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin when it comes to judicial bias is incorrect: heterosexuals enjoy all of the benefits so their desire would not stem solely from being heterosexual. They don't know oppression (philosophically-speaking).
Now, if you created some alternate world exactly like this one in every way except that California granted homosexuals $500,000 of tax-free earned income allowance every year and heterosexuals did not enjoy that benefit, you'd be correct in questioning a heterosexual's motives based solely on sexuality if s/he was potentially going to be adjudicating the constitutionality of the provision.
When it's all said and done I believe he was not confirmed because he is gay and the activism was a convenient excuse, but I do also believe that his alleged activism should have been thoroughly vetted and the possibility exists that activism could lead to valid concerns about bias.
Facebook
Twitter