NOM Decries Biased 9th Circuit Appeals Hearing -- Reinhardt Refusal to Withdrawal Robs People of Unbiased Appeal


The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today decried the hearing to determine the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment providing that marriage is only the union of a man and a woman. NOM is protesting the involvement of Judge Stephen Reinhardt because Reinhardt's wife has been involved in the case from the beginning as the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California.

"This hearing makes a mockery of the federal judiciary," said Brian Brown, president of NOM. "Citizens are entitled to a guarantee of impartiality from their judiciary. Yet here we have the spectacle of a federal appeals court justice ruling on a case in which his wife represents a group that is a participant. A cynic would be left to wonder if the fix is in for marriage in the Ninth Circuit."

Help NOM protect marriage and put a stop to this abuse of the will of the people. Right now your donation of $10, $25, $100 or more will be doubled thanks to a matching challenge grant from some of our generous donors. Please give today.

See the rest of the statement here.


  1. Don
    Posted December 6, 2010 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    There's an old saying that every knock is a boost. It is amazing in life how often those who scheme have their ambitions thwarted in the end!

  2. Richard
    Posted December 6, 2010 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Nom just can't stand the long arm of the law. Judges, liberal and conservative, judge and the people must respect the constitutionality of their decisions. Of course you don't report the hearings, you just focus on one individual because you hope that by singling out the family associations of one judge you can thwart the law. It just doesn't work that way. If it did we would all be questioning the presence of a judge who received his law degree from Brigham Young University but no, we accept that his judicial demeanor is unbiased as we should of all judges because that's what they are sworn to do. Think about it.

  3. Rick DeLano
    Posted December 6, 2010 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    All I can say is pride cometh before a fall. Justice Scalia seems to understand precisely what is afoot in this utterly shocking judicial ram-job.

    I betcha Judge Reinhardt will find for standing, just so he can write the opinion which will, finally, remove all fig-leaves from this escapade in judicial tyranny.

    Just to reiterate: no matter how brilliant your Dream Team lawyers are, in the end you gotta be able to count to five.

    SCOTUS or bust!

  4. TC Matthews
    Posted December 6, 2010 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    SCOTUS or bust.... 🙂

  5. Richard
    Posted December 6, 2010 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Nine justices, all committed to upholding the law as determined by the Constitution of the United States.

    Judge Walker, a federal judge, made his determination based upon constitutional findings he is sworn to uphold.

    California Appellate Court (3 judges) will determine findings based upon constitutional law and as they are sworn to uphold.

    SCOTUS will determine findings based upon constitutional law as it is sworn to uphold.

    What bias will you screech about if the Court does not rule in your favor? When will you look to the law and not your own bias?

  6. Don
    Posted December 6, 2010 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Well, Richard, how about we question why the homosexual activist "equality" agenda is supported by the Communist Party?

  7. Posted December 6, 2010 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Judge Walker, a federal judge, made his determination based upon constitutional findings he is sworn to uphold.

    And in doing so, ignored binding precedent (Baker v. Nelson and Adams v. Howerton)

  8. Don
    Posted December 7, 2010 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    Richard wrote: "When will you look to the law and not your own bias?"

    First of all, Richard, the law is not above the people. It is meant to serve the people and to reflect their values. As the Declaration of Independence states:

    "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

    It seems to be that most homosexual marriage activists attempt to assert that there is some sort of authority above the people which is in no way accountable to the people. That simply is not the case.

    You use the term "bias", Richard. I ask you this, Richard; is the opinion of the majority "bias" or is it the will of the people? When the Declaration of Independence states that government derives it's powers from the consent of the governed on what basis is such consent given or removed? Is there some way other than the consent of the majority?

  9. thark
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 4:10 pm | Permalink


    (sure sounds like insurmountable bias to me!)

    Turns that 5-4 right on what's left if its head, no?

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.