“What more evidence do we need that Judge Walker is a rogue judge with little regard for ordinary judicial process and fair play?" - Brian Brown, President
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Prop 8 proponents today filed a motion in response to Judge Vaughn Walker’s illegal decision to release part of the videotapes of expert witnesses’ testimony in the Prop 8 trial. In response, Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), released the following statement:
“By releasing the videotape on the eve of leaving the judicial bench, Judge Walker violated a judicial ethic, a clear promise he made to the witnesses, and defied the Supreme Court itself. What more evidence do we need that we have on our hands a rogue judge with little regard for ordinary judicial process and fair play?” said Brian Brown, NOM’s President.
“Allegations of prejudice and the appearance of bias on the part of Judge Walker are becoming increasingly hard to ignore, given this reckless disregard of normal judicial rules of behavior,” added Brown.
Key excerpts from the Motion:
On February 18, 2011, Judge Walker delivered a speech at the University of Arizona in which he played a portion of the video recording of the cross- examination of one of Proponents’ expert witnesses in the trial of this case. The speech was video taped by C-SPAN, and it was subsequently broadcast on C- SPAN several times beginning on March 22 ... The speech is available for viewing on C-SPAN’s website.
By publicly displaying the video recording of a portion of the trial testimony, Judge Walker (1) violated his own order placing the video recording of the trial under seal; (2) ignored the clear terms of the district court’s Local Rule 77-1-3, which prohibits the broadcast or other transmission of trial proceedings beyond “the confines of the courthouse”; (3) contravened the longstanding policies of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Judicial Council of this Court prohibiting public broadcast of trial proceedings; and (4) defied the United States Supreme Court’s prior decision in this case ruling that an earlier attempt by then- Chief Judge Walker to publicly broadcast the trial proceedings “complied neither with existing rules or policies nor the required procedures for amending them.”
The Motion can be read in its entirety here.
11 Comments
Note that there are no similar, credible accusations against U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Battailon or Texas Family District Court Judge Tena Callahan.
Homosexual activists tell us that judges should not be subject to removal from the bench by voters, that judges are "above the political fray" and that their "judicial independence" must be preserved. I have but one reply. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely!"
Who is going to defend Judge Walker?
Michael:
You are the legal expert around here. Is there a defense?
Uh, you can find all sorts of footage from all levels of court on youtube, C-SPAN and courts.gov.
And the Supreme Court ruled on *live* broadcast. The trial is in a whole different court now (one that regularly posts proceedings online; heck, we all watched the appeal on TV, didn't we?) so it's hardly a "live" trial, is it? I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I'm pretty sure the trial is over.
Keep reaching for straws, NOM.
AJ:
Reaching for straws. Let's see. We had Prop 8 which gays were going to keep off the ballot.
Next we had Prop 8 where gays were already celebrating it's defeat before they found that it passed.
Then we had Maine where homosexual "marriage" was a done deal with the Maine legislature and governor.
Then the New Jersey Supreme Court threw out a case brought a homosexual couple after the New Jersey legislature failed to pass a same sex marriage bill.
Next, the "sure thing" for same sex marriage in Maryland evaporated into thin air.
Reaching at straws? Those straws NOM has reached for have proven to be the undoing of the homosexual "marriage" agenda. I think NOM should take your suggestion and keep on reaching for straws.
Walker is a typical advocate of SSM; however he has a privileged position and has abused it throughout his conduct on this case and subsequently in his public actions.
The corruptive influence of gay identity politics is manifest for those with eyes to see.
I'm not sure why NOM is so afraid of people seeing them act in court.
I thought they were proud of their actions.
The judge's job was to follow binding precedent. Instead, he defied binding precedent. Let us start with Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), where the U.S. Supreme Court, including Justices Harry Blackmun (who next year would author Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113), William Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall, unanimously dismissed, for want of a substantial federal question, an appeal alleging that a Minnesota statute defining marriage as between one man and one woman violated the due process rights to marriage and privacy and violated equal protection. He defied Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), which held that laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman “has a rational basis and therefore comports with the due process clause and its equal protection requirements”. id at 1042. See also In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. (upholding Texas’s Proposition 2 against due process and equal protection challenges), 326 S.W.3d 654 (Tx. 5th Cir. Ct. of Appeal 2010) In his rational basis “analysis”, he defied FCC v. Beach Communications (holding that “is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.”) 508 U.S. 307 at 315 (1993) and Davis v. Beason (holding that seeking to establish a free, self-governing commonwealth on the basis of families consisting in and springing forth from unions of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony) 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345. In holding that homosexuals constitute a suspect class, he defied High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (holding that homosexuals are not a suspect class), 895 F.2d 563, 573-74 (9th Cir. 1990), Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (same), 324
F.3d 1130 at 1137 (9th Cir. 2003), and Witt v. Department of the Air Force (same), 527 F.3d 806 at 821. See also Cook v. Gates (same), 528 F.3d 42. (1st Cir. 2008)
And even if some form of injunctive relief was appropriate (which it is clearly not given binding precedent) , by issuing a broad injunction that purports to stop the state from enforcing Proposition 8, he again defied binding precedent. By enjoining the governor, attorney general, and the recorder of vital statistics, he defied Ex Parte Young (holding that the defendant being enjoined “must have some connection with the enforcement of the [allegedly unconstitutional] act.”) 209 U.S. 123 at 157, and Los Angeles County Bar Association v. Eu (holding that the enjoined defendants’ “connection must be fairly direct; a generalized duty to enforce state law or general supervisory power over the persons responsible for enforcing the challenged provision will not subject an official to suit.”) , 979 F.2d 697 at 704 (9th Cir. 1992). (The act that allegedly denied the civil rights of the plaintiffs was the denial of the marriage license, and that act was only done by the defendant county clerks.) See also Bishop v. Oklahoma, No. 06-5188N.D. Okla. (D.C. No. 04-CV-848-TCK) (dismissing Oklahoma governor and attorney general as defendants in a constitutional challenge against Question 711) (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) In awarding relief beyond the individual plaintiffs, he defied Zepeda v. INS, holding that a court may not determine the rights of non-litigants) 753 F.2d 719 at 726 (9th Cir. 1983), Meinhold v. U.S. Department of Defense (overturning injunction except to the extent it provided plaintiff relief), 34 F.3d 1469 at 1480 (9th Cir. 1994) See also Virginia Society for Human Life v. FEC, (narrowing
nationwide injunction to the plaintiff in facial constitutional challenge) 263 F.3d 379 at 394 (4th Cir. 2001)
Scott:
I'm not sure why the HRC is so afraid of law firms defending DOMA. Regardless of the issue at hand, everyone is entitled to exercise their right to legal process. By contacting 200 law firms, asking that they not engage in a legal defense of DOMA, the HRC is actively seeking to stymie a lawful legal process. Why is the HRC so afraid of the American legal process?
Plus, let us assume that the appeal in the Massachusetts case is withdrawn.
That means that the ruling will only affect Massachusetts, while, if DOMA is struck down on equal protection or due process grounds by the First Circuit, it will affect marriage laws in Maine, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.
Why is HRC afraid of the First Circuit or Supreme Court ruling on DOMA?
4 Trackbacks
[...] Elected Officials Search NOM BLOG Home » States » California » BREAKING NEWS: Prop 8 Supporters Go After Judge Walker's Ilegal Release of Videotape « Previous Entry Next Entry » [...]
[...] Related: NOM Responds to News Judge Walker Violated Judicial Rules, Released Video in Defiance of Supreme Cou... [...]
[...] I said in a NOM press release, “What more evidence do we need that Vaughn Walker is a rogue judge with little regard for [...]
[...] I said in a NOM press release, “What more evidence do we need that Vaughn Walker is a rogue judge with little regard for [...]