After lengthy oral argument, the 9th Circuit appeared poised to rule that a video from the trial on the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, was improperly broadcast to the public.
The court seemed less likely to accept the Prop. 8 proponents' argument that the district judge who struck down the measure should have recused himself because of his long-term relationship with another man.
24 Comments
In looking at the Tweets yesterday regarding whether the judge should have recused himself, it seemed many were pointing only to whether the judge himself had any intention to marry. Whether he had any intention to marry or not is not the crux of the issue because, as the stats prove, this is not as much about same-sex couples wanting to marry as it is same-sex couple wanting society's approval for their relationships. Marriage is only the primary vehicle by which by which they seek this endorsement.
So the question should be: Did the judge have anything to gain by not recusing himself? Surely the judge would like to feel his same-sex relationship has the ultimate endorsement (i.e., qualifying for marriage if he wanted to). So yes, he did have something to gain. Moreover, are we to believe the judge, being in a same-sex relationship, had no friends in same-sex relationships for whom he would also like this endorsement?
The argument that because he didn't want to marry means he he had nothing to gain sure seems disingenuous.
of course a federal judges are going to say thier former buddy was partial. Even though deep inside they know and so does everyone else.
* not
Partiality was evident thought V. Walker's sham trail, but the threshold for recusal is the appearance of partiality; to which every person on the face of the earth did a double take when V. Walker’s proclivity was brought to light - save maybe those on the inside looking out.
Only a fool would believe V. Walker could not be swayed by the thought that a ruling in support of Prop 8 would end all prospects for his relationship receiving public recognition and forced governmental acceptance - a fool is the lowest thing a man can be.
The courts credibility is on the line here; the jurists noted as much throughout these hearings
Randy E King, please show us in the judge's ruling where you see a biased opinion. You can't because the prop 8 supporters had no case and presented no case.
@Dan, Walkers ruling destroyed the sexual integration basis of traditional marriage, by segregating the sexes. Moreover, his ruling destroyed the link to biological parenthood protecting a child's right to presumption of paternity though responsible procreation.
Ed Whelan shows it .
In addition to the above, Walker issued an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Proposition 8 throughout the entire state, despite the fact that this was not a class-action and plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction for other persons, thus defying binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. See See Doran v. Salem Inn,
Inc., 422 U.S. 922 at 931 (1975) (noting that “neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances [ like Proposition 8] except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs”) Monsanto Co. v.
Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 at 2760 (2010) (narrowing injunction in a facial challenge to federal agency action in part because the plaintiffs “do not represent a class, so they could not seek to enjoin such an order on the ground that it might cause harm to other parties”). Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719 at 727 (9th Cir. 1983); Nat’l Ctr. for Immigration
Rights v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365 at 1371-1372 (9th Cir. 1984). Meinhold v. U.S. Department of Defense , 34 F.3d 1469 at 1480 (9th Cir. 1994) (overturning injunction except to the extent it provided plaintiff relief) See also Los Angeles Haven Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius,
2011 WL 873303, at *15 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2011) (same)
He also refused to stay his ruling pending appeal, forcing the Ninth Circuit to do so.
If two persons in a same-sex relationship filed suit in federal court challenging the traditional definition of marriage on the basis that the definition denies them society's approval, then it would be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Only if they wanted to marry, or were denied a concrete, tangible benefit afforded to married couples, would they have standing.
I've wondered myself why Cooper restricted his argument to whether or not the judge himself wanted to marry his partner. I presume there must have been some reason, although I sure can't figure out what it must have been.
@Dan,
V. Walker stated in one of his infamous "points of fact" that partners in a long term same-sex relationship are in fact married as a matter of law; thus declaring that his like situated long term same-sex relationship was in fact a marriage.
Do I really have to go through V. Walkers ridiculous assertions line by line? This miscreant’s entire ruling reads like the homosexual manifesto. Walker declared his proclivity to be moral as a matter of law; ruling that opposition to new rights for sexual depravity that are grounded in religion are in fact unconstitutional.
Walker's ruling appeared to be nothing more than a personal letter to Justice Kennedy begging him to finish what he started in Lawrence V. Texas. Walker forgets that Kennedy noted in his majority opinion "this opinion should in no way be viewed as an open door to same-sex marriage."
Jurists like to pull this crap in the dead of night behind closed doors where they can be sure that they will never face ramifications for their treason; as opposed to the broad daylight attack taking place here.
M. Jones, I am looking for facts and laws not your opinion on what the 'ideal' non-existing law would be. Your side put no legal basis into its argument and thus it was rejected. If you had the legal arguments, your side would have entered it into evidence but you couldn't.
Who do you think you're kidding, Dan? Walker couldn't have been more biased and partial than he was in the Prop 8 case.
He did not just ignore the contrary precedents presented by the defense; he pretended they do not exist. He also ignored every contrary fact presented to him—pretending they, too, did not exist. He ignored enormous evidence to the contrary to make the fantastic imaginary claim that "a union of husband and wife" has NEVER been a core part of marriage in our nation's history and traditions. In his ruling Walker pretended he never saw the deep scholarly evidence that opposite sex unions are different and children need mothers and fathers. Judge Walker even believed that he can make the future into a fact, ignoring the testimony of anti-Prop 8 expert witnesses that gay marriage is a monumental change, that will change the meaning of marriage in ways impossible to predict. Judges are not supposed to put voters’ motivations on trial. Walker ignored this precedent too. Walker's opinion defamed the whole country, including Pres. Obama, and the majority of judges who have found our marriage laws survive rational scrutiny.
http://www.nomblog.com/1586/
Walker no doubt has many aquaintences, friends, and family who would hate and resent him if he did not make the activist decision that he made. That, alone was enough reason to recurse himself.
Dan, presumption of paternity and the sexual basis of marriage has always been a fundamental part of existing traditional civil marriage law. See grounds for divorce and annulment and presumption of paternity. Nothing non-existing about that.
Jones,
how would presumption of paternity apply in same-sex "marriage"?
ME, can not exist in SSM, a father is presumed to be the biological father in traditional marriage, protecting the child born out of that relationship.
Dan,there is no case whatsoever for same-sex marriage.Walker accepted arguments he should have thrown out and vice versa.
Walker, through his extending of the definition of civil marriage changed the law, against the will of the people (Prop.8), the majority, and he changed it in such a way that gave himself allowance into civil marriage with another man, whether he intended in applying for the license or not. If he didn't obey the higher courts, why would he recuse himself? He's just out to make a mess of things, civil disobedience, to bring attention to the issue, and then retire, the coward. A Judge can handle a divorce case, because he is not creating a new law to his advantage, he is only following the law, and whether he wants to divorce at the time or not, it still wouldn't change any law. Walker should have recused himself because he does not respect the law, but that's enforced only if the Judges above him actually follow the law too. So we have a hierarchy of Judges that should recuse themselves, but don't. It is corruption defending corruption. One Judge at the 9th Circuit is so old, he can't even think deep, anymore.
And if those same judges had asked questions that were more partial to your side, and rule for your side, I'm sure that each and every one of you who have written disparaging remarks now will be more than willing to agree with their ruling and praise their abilities. You're all hypocrites.
Basing your judgments on "what-ifs" you have no way of answering may make you feel better about not having truth on your side Teri, but it will not turn the truth into a lie.
What truth are you talking about, Randy? The truth that your side put on no case whatsoever? Having the brass balls to say at the end that they needed no evidence? The fact that you all have said nothing but negatives about these judges but if they rule for you, you'll all be praising them to the heavens? Or the truth that you're all hypocrites? Which truth, Randy? You can argue all you want about biological ties and nobody is as good as a real parent, but all of that has nothing to do with civil marriage and you can't accept that truth. You can't accept the truth that your side teaches nothing but hate, when you think you're being oh, so Christian.
Excellent point Dan.
We should also add that to the fact the appearance of partiality alone is a reason to vacate a judgment, as MIchael Ejercito posted, “[i]f it would appear to a reasonable person that a judge has knowledge of facts that would give him an interest in the
litigation then an appearance of partiality is created even though no actual partiality exists . . . .” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 at 860 (1988),
It seems, you have made a very strong argument for why the Walker ruling must be vacated.
If the court does not vacate Judge Walker's ruling because he did not "intend" to marry, I think your argument should should logically trump that on higher appeal.
Actually, you said the above without needing evidence.
You are merely repeating a sound byte from the media that ignores the real substance of the case.
Ed Whelan explains this in detail in his article, Judge Walker and Supposed Lack of “Evidence” of Marriage’s Procreative Purpose.
Key excerpt:
You're right, of course.
The people whose rights we're arguing about should have no say. Only people who would not be in any way affected one way or the other have any right to discuss this issue.
Walker is biased in favor of reality; that rather worked against Prop 8 proponents, so perhaps we should only allow judges who have lost touch with it entirely.
Teri,it is not "hate" that motivates the conviction that those afflicted by homosexuality are not too stupid to overcome it.
Pat,Walker is biased in favor of treating his fellow homosexuals as too stupid to overcome their homosexuality.