NOM BLOG

9th Circuit To Rule on Prop 8 and Judge Walker's Impartiality Simultaneously

 

Metro Weekly (a gay newspaper):

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will be deciding the appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional alongside the appeal of U.S. District Court Judge James Ware's ruling denying the Proposition 8 proponents' attempt to have Walker's ruling vacated because they argued he was biased because he is gay and has a partner.

The decision was announced in a one-sentence order issued this afternoon in granting a request from the proponents that the matters be consolidated.

... With today's order, all of the questions relating to the validity and merits of the constitutionality of Proposition 8 could be decided by the Ninth Circuit in one decision, allowing for the most clean appeal possible to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The only ancillary matter still unconsolidated is the question of whether the tapes of the Proposition 8 trial conducted by Walker in January 2010 and concluded that June can be released to the media and public. The Ninth Circuit oral arguments on the appeal of that question will be held at 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time Dec. 8.

3 Comments

  1. Little man
    Posted November 24, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    What i like is that our legal system is patient and not in a hurry. The issues Mr. Walker created out of the blue, keep walking through the legal system, up and up, because Prop8 citizens are not about to let it die off. That elected officials in CA decide to implicitly veto Prop8 says it like it is. Now, they got slapped down. So, it is the lower courts who create rights for certain people out of the blue. Sympathy does not legislate, but bias is seen in every legislature because of special interests. But that is expected as part of the system. The people finally get rid of crazy legislators (crazy is defined as those who the people reject).

  2. Bryce K.
    Posted November 25, 2011 at 2:56 am | Permalink

    "Slapped down"? I think not. Please back up your assertion.

  3. Louis E.
    Posted November 26, 2011 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    The state officials wanted the court to rule that their decision not to appeal a ruling against a voter initiative meant the voter initiative could not be defended.The state supreme court,which had previously ruled in favor of their stand on the issue the initiative covered only to be overruled by that voter initiative,nonetheless unanimously ruled that they had no right to preclude further legal defense of the initiative.
    That's "slapped down".