Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

More coverage and analysis on Prop 8 sponsors’ motion to vacate ruling

Prop 8 trial

By Adam Bink

A roundup of some interesting notes and analysis pieces this morning.

From SCOTUSBlog (bolding mine on the process parts):

In the new maneuver, the opponents of same-sex marriage relied upon comments that Walker had made in April, after his retirement, to a group of reporters, acknowledging publicly for the first time that he had been engaged in a ten-year same-sex relationship with a doctor.  The motion asserted that the opponents were “not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on his case.”  Rather, they argued that Judge Walker had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, because he may wish to marry his partner if Proposition 8 no longer exists.  At a minimum, the motion argued, he should have disclosed that relationship and whether he has any interest in marriage so that the parties in the case could evaluate whether to formally demand that he step aside under federal laws governing such disqualifications.

To help bolster their argument that Walker’s impartiality is clearly open to question, the motion listed a series of actions that he had taken during the progress of the case, and then commented: “The unprecedented, irregular, and/or peremptory nature of these rulings is difficult — very difficult — to take as the product of an objective, impartial judicial mind.”  While conceding that judicial rulings by themselves almost never amount to a valid basis for a disqualification demand, these rulings, it said, “are nevertheless highly relevant to the inquiry” under federal law.

Technically, the proposed order that the opponents filed with their motion would have Judge Ware declare that he “would grant” the motion to wipe out the ruling, so that the opponents could then go to the Circuit Court and ask it to send the current appeal back to him for that purpose.

At the Circuit Court, aside from the pending motion to permanently seal the videotape of the trial, the case is in an inactive state while the Circuit Court panel awaits a ruling — not expected until this Fall at the earliest — from the California Supreme Court on an issue of California state law that may influence whether the Proposition 8 backers’ appeal against the Walker ruling can proceed.  Of course, if the motion to vacate were ultimately granted, that would end the case, although an appeal of that would surely be pursued by the two same-sex couples who filed the successful challenge to Proposition 8.

A baseball analogy from The Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen, former chief legal analyst for CBS News and Murrow Award winner, in a piece titled “Why the New Prop 8 Argument is Bogus — And Offensive”:

The legal argument that a veteran federal judge cannot fairly preside over a trial involving gay marriage because he is gay and in a relationship is so preposterous that it requires me to use a sports analogy to express my disdain. I know: Now-retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, first appointed by President Reagan and then re-appointed by President George H.W. Bush, surely deserves better than that for his patient work on the Proposition 8 case. But it’s the best I can do in the circumstances.

So let me take you to the baseball diamond. It’s the Yankees versus the Red Sox (don’t read anything into my selection of teams, pick your own if you’d like). The Red Sox are crushing their opponents. It’s 15-0 in the 6th inning. The Yankees’ pitchers aren’t pitching and the Yankees’ hitters aren’t hitting. The bases are loaded with Sox and New York manager Joe Girardi decides after a visit to the mound notto replace his pitcher, who has been battered about like a rag doll by Boston’s hitters.

What we have here with this new argument, then, is a vestige of the very bias and bigotry that gay and lesbian Americans have had to deal with for all these years.”Are you sure about that decision, Joe?” the home plate umpire politely asks Girardi as the manager begins to walk off the field. “I just want to make sure I’ve given you a chance to try something else.”

“We’re fine, ump,” Girardi responds. And the game continues. It ends 21-0. Eight months later, the Yankees find out that the umpire was dating someone from Boston. They immediately call Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig and share with him their new evidence.

“The game was rigged!” the Yankees cry. “That ump had it in for us. The fact that he is dating someone from Boston creates a reasonable suspicion that he was unfair and called the game in favor of the Red Sox. The game should be a do-over.”

“But you guys got crushed,” Selig responds. “It was never a close game. What, possibly, could this umpire have done to influence the impact of this game more than he otherwise would do in the normal course of business?”

“He’s from Boston, judge,” the Yankees say. ”That’s all you really need to know.”

That is the magnitude of the silliness we are talking about here. That’s how much of a rout last summer’s Proposition 8 trial was. And that’s why the argument, now made by some same-sex marriage opponents, is so dubious. Having lost on the merits, and with polls showing support for same-sex marriage growing, Prop 8′s tribunes want to vacate Judge Walker’s landmark ruling because he is gay and in a relationship. That’s right. Having come to court with virtually no evidence or arguments, having had their hats handed to them by same-sex marriage proponents David Boies and Ted Olson, Prop 8′s tribunes now are saying that they were jobbed by the umpire’s bias.

[...]

Judge Walker’s decision is going to stand or fall on appeal on its merits; whether the ballot initiative violated the equal protection rights of California’s citizens to marry their same-sex partners. It is going to be decided upon whether his findings of fact and conclusions of law were correct, and reasonable, and legally justifiable. It is not going to be decided by whom the judge is dating or what his sexual orientation may be. And it is certainly not going to be decided because a trial judge failed to disclose to the litigants before him who he was (or was not) seeing during the trial.

No reasonable person in America today would challenge a black judge by claiming he could not fairly judge a civil rights case. No reasonable person in America today would challenge a female judge claiming she could not fairly judge a case about women’s health. What we have here with this new argument, then, is a vestige of the very bias and bigotry that gay and lesbian Americans have had to deal with for all these years. How ironic that a case designed to eliminate official prejudice would generate such prejudice against an official. Like I said, Judge Walker surely deserves better than this offensive new wrinkle in the case of his lifetime.

P8TT friend and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, in a statement, gets it right:

“This is a desperate and ill-advised move that underscores their inability to defend Prop 8 on the merits. This is not likely to win them any points with the courts, who understandably do not appreciate having the integrity of judges called into question based on such outrageous grounds. This is part and parcel of the underhanded way the Prop 8 campaign itself was run-based on lies, insinuations, and unsupported innuendo.”

Which is why, as I wrote last night, this may turn out to be a mistake.

Finally, if you missed it, Maggie’s prebuttal. Or something.

Any interesting takes you’re reading?

Update: A very good segment from KTVU in San Francisco, including Andrea from EQCA and Professor David Levine at UC Hastings.

120 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. LCH  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:25 am

    ♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡

  • 2. JonT  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:27 am

  • 3. Alan E.  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:30 am

    So much to read today, but no time!

  • 4. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:31 am

    same

  • 5. Ronnie  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:36 am

    "What we have here with this new argument, then, is a vestige of the very bias and bigotry that gay and lesbian Americans have had to deal with for all these years."

    DING, DING…right on the nose….. <3…Ronnie

  • 6. Sagesse  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:37 am

    The ultimate delaying tactic?

  • 7. DazedWheels  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:38 am

    Using the baseball analogy, the final score was more like 1000 for our side and "which end of this stick do we hold?" for their side. :)

  • 8. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:48 am

    Pardon the repost (I put this under the very long thread of yesterday's news on this topic this morning), but the more I think about it, the more I would like to see this exploited. Here's my argument:
    1. The Prop 8 folks argue that they have standing to appeal because they are impacted (somehow–no one has articulated how, specifically) by us getting married.
    2. The Prop 8 folks argue that Judge Walker is biased because he would/could benefit from the decision.
    3. Therefore, they seem to be implying that a straight judge would be impartial because s/he has no dog in the hunt. That there is NO IMPACT on a straight person if the gays are allowed to marry.

    Seems to shoot the basis of their whole appeal down.

    (But I tend to agree with yesterday's post that this is a Hail Mary pass–Catholic pun intended–to play to the court of public opinion. I just love the law of unintended consequences.)

  • 9. Straight for Equalit  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:54 am

  • 10. Bill  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:57 am

    If you can't win on the merits…

  • 11. John  |  April 26, 2011 at 3:01 am

    As I watch this, all I can think is, "Wow." They are desperate.

    Judge Walker could have done plenty of things to hurt the other side case that he didn't do. #1 would have been to not stay the ruling initially, which would have caused more people to get marry, which would have exposed more open minded people to the idea that gay and lesbian married couples are just like every other married couple. He didn't.

    I am consistently amazed at how people using religion can't follow basic principles of their religion – such as ethics. I always thought I'd know I was following the wrong god if my god ever expected me to lie, ignore facts, misrepresent facts, distort someone else's character, etc. My God doesn't require that from me.

  • 12. Pliny  |  April 26, 2011 at 3:05 am

    If there was bias, the proponents can prove it by dropping their attempts to seal the video.

    Show us the tape!

  • 13. John  |  April 26, 2011 at 3:17 am

    Yes!

    Dear NOM:

    We, like you, are concerned when there is a lack of transparency within the US Court System. Will you support releasing the trial videos, to allow the unbiased American public to see – without being filtered through liberal news organizations – what REALLY happened at the trial? I'm sure you agree that your fellow citizens will, as you point out that they've done in many elections, be able to fairly determine if the case shows evidence of bias.

    Thanks in advance for your support on this!

    Equally, I'm sure you will also support the idea of open elections, where potential sources of bias are made public prior to the election. I'm sure that your concern for bias would extend into the country's democratic processes, and that if someone was manipulating elections for personal gain, I'm sure you would want that person or organization to be exposed. So I am sure NOM will be leading the way in election transparency in the future, by supporting laws that require the disclosure of funding sources for campaigns and initiatives. After all, potential sources of bias must be brought into the open.

    Once again, thank you NOM for your outstanding display of your beliefs regarding the need for transparency in law and public policy!

    Sincerely,
    An interested friend

  • 14. Dave P  |  April 26, 2011 at 3:23 am

    Yup. that's right. They are admitting that they have no standing. And they are admitting that Prop 8 serves no legitimate state interest.

    They are saying "the judge should have been a straight person. Straight people are not biased on this issue because straight people are not affected by legalized same sex marriage…. oh…wait…uh…can we rephrase that?…"

  • 15. Jon  |  April 26, 2011 at 3:29 am

    An old adage in the biz:

    "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." – quoted by Carl Sandburg in The People, Yes (1936)

    NOM is pounding the table and yelling like hell. They have to. The facts and the law are against them. They will continue to. They have to. The law and the facts will continue to be against them. Expect it. Expect more high volume nonsense. It's all they've got left.

    The bummer for them is they're now in a venue where this kind of show doesn't count for much.

  • 16. Reformed Conservativ  |  April 26, 2011 at 3:30 am

    Appologies if this idea has already been mentioned, it does seem so obvious.

    Assuming that NOM believes that marriage equality dilutes the value of marriage then wouldn't a straight judge (single or married) be called into question in the same manner on the assumption that he had a personal interest in the outcome of the trial. That is to say, a personal interest in not having his existing or planned marriage diluted in value?

    The contrast shows that this is further evidence of discrimination. It seems that no profession is suitable for a gay person, or rather, no gay person is suitable for any profession. At best, it appears that gay people are suitable only in positions assinged to them by straight peope. (Not soldiers, not judges, not teachers, not parents.)

    Perhaps astronauts?

  • 17. Sagesse  |  April 26, 2011 at 3:36 am

    They are doing this because they have no standing. Taking this up through the appeal process delays the overturning of Prop 8, and the end of the stay, until it is resolved. Even if the decision is not vacated. They're starting the clock over.

  • 18. Larry Little  |  April 26, 2011 at 3:55 am

    Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is discriminatory…..and it surely is. What do the opponents want to do…….transfer the case to a gay-hating Mormon judge or evangelical nut case judge from Louisiana or someone who will ignore the law and vote the way the Pope wants? Same sex marriage should be the law of the land..religion doesn't need a monopoly on marriage………..all the church (the driving force for gay hatred) does is polarize the population in their attempts to legislate religion's dogmatic hatred in a world with 2 billion atheists that are filled up with the mythology of a supreme being.

  • 19. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 26, 2011 at 3:56 am

    Can those NOM losers lose faster? I think we're all getting impatient.

  • 20. Ronnie  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:03 am

    "What do the opponents want to do…….transfer the case to a gay-hating Mormon judge or evangelical nut case judge from Louisiana or someone who will ignore the law and vote the way the Pope wants?"

    Exactly….case in point: NOM etc. etc. sending a message to judges all across this country…."Rule against Marriage Equality or we will have you fired, impeached, discredited, so on & so forth."

    : / ….Ronnie

  • 21. Ann S.  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:20 am

    ditto

  • 22. Carpool Cookie  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:25 am

    I don't know if it's all about delay….the more I hear out of them, the more out-of-touch and delusional they seem to be. I think they believe they're right about EVERYTHING.

  • 23. Carpool Cookie  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:28 am

    Reformed: I love your name!!

    Now we must get you a gravatar.

  • 24. Cat  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:30 am

    The left is doing something dishonorable that the right would NEVER do! Putting pressure on a law firm… Tssk.

    Although… didn't the department of defense try to pressure law firms to keep them from defending Guantanamo detainees… Nah, I must be imagining that…

  • 25. James Sweet  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:35 am

    That last point (from Shannon Minter) is an interesting one. Thinking of this purely from the perspective of "if I were a marriage opponent and wanted to maximize my chances of upholding prop 8, what would I do?", this does indeed seem like a bad move.

    I think from the bad guys' perspective, their best bet here would have been to whoop up the base about what an egregious miscarriage of justice this is (maybe even using those secret back channels that Marinelli disclosed, so NOM can keep their hands clean) but not actually file any motions — which as Minter points out are likely to do nothing more than piss off whatever judges hear them.

    Alternate take: Maybe given the recent polling data, the bad guys know they are fighting a rapidly losing battle, and so the goal has shifted from victory to merely keeping their organization afloat as long as possible. Cheap symbolic grandstanding like this motion may not improve their chances in court (and may even hurt them), but it probably brings in the donations…

    Or, I could even go so far as giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they really believe in this hateful cause, and the goal is just to get as much public visibility as they can while they still have a chance, in the (vain) hopes that someday public opinion will swing back in their direction.

    But probably, the simplest explanation is that whatever is broken in their brains that makes them fail to see how stupid their position is also makes them fail to see how tactically stupid this motion is. heh…

  • 26. AB  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:36 am

    Kathleen, when is the deadline for the response brief?

  • 27. AB  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:38 am

    I just wish this had happened BEFORE the motion to lift the stay. Certainly this will prolong the trial, and piss people off. Given that, maybe we would have had a better shot.

  • 28. Joe  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:57 am

    Your final conclusion is probably the correct one. In their minds there's no way he could be partial. But they've convinced themselves of it so much they don't realize they have to do that in a court law (much of the reason they've lost so much…. it's true just because it is!). No wonder they lose.

  • 29. Joe  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:59 am

    But there's a flaw: If he was going to get married, why didn't he when he had the chance? He has a partner, that doesn't mean he WILL get married. There's no engagement, nothing to indicate he WILL get married, so there's no sign of conflict of interest. Otherwise where does it end? Would a judge have to disclose that somewhere sometime in some alternate reality every judge might possibly benefit from any law? There wouldn't be any judges left to be able to judge anything!

    No the assumption is the same as it's always been: He can't be partial because he's gay, despite the fact that's judged AGAINST gay groups in the past.

  • 30. Carpool Cookie  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:03 am

    The stumbling block for me as I read the court papers is, their argument often rests on the language "whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

    Yet fantasizing possible futures for someone you know next to nothing about isn't reasonable! In fact, it's rather insane.

  • 31. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:06 am

    No idea. I'll see if I can find the answer, if no one else knows.

  • 32. Maggie4NoH8  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:25 am

    I seem to recall Walker was a bit like that ump…

    "Are you *sure* that's all you got???" (To the Prop 8 folks)

    This is just utter insanity, and quite literally proves they just don't like gays and lesbians.

  • 33. Trish  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:38 am

    Right. I know assorted gay and lesbian couples who did not marry in 2008 and don't intend to marry because they would lose state assistance. I know other gay and lesbian couples who don't believe in marriage at all because it is a constricting institution. Being gay and in a long term relationship does not automatically lead to marriage, especially since we live in a culture that still insists that gays and lesbians cannot marry and even if they are legally married, they aren't "really" married (see Louis Marinelli circa 2010).

  • 34. nightshayde  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:44 am

    I know a straight couple who doesn't intend to marry because of health insurance reasons (his job doesn't give it & she'd lose eligibility for state-sponsored coverage – not helpful when you're being treated for breast cancer).

    Not every long-term couple wants to get married. Not every married couple (or long-term couple) wants to have children. Each relationship is different no matter whether the partners' reproductive organs match or are opposites.

  • 35. John  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:46 am

    Oh, they love gays and lesbians. They just hate the sin. Don't confuse that with other sins, we're talking about THE SIN.

    Some definitions:

    THE SIN: gay sex and anything that allows those engaging in sex to feel comfortable in other areas of their lives (you have to make everything miserable to convince them of the errors of their ways, after all – if they are comfortable, they might stay gay).

    There's another category – other sins (these aren't a big deal): This category covers things like lying ("These witnesses won't testify out of fear of being on TV"), breaking 'Ceaser's' laws ("We shouldn't have to follow disclosure laws"), distracting from the issue ("If they can marry, your kid might find out that gays exist."), not helping the poor (they call this 'personal responsibility'), etc.

    Basically they somehow have twisted a gospel of love into a gospel that hates love while loving selfishness, pride, and self-righteousness.

  • 36. Joe  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:52 am

    "admitting that they have no standing."

    you cant admit that you have no standing.

    standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction. subject-matter jurisdiction is essential for the court to rule. it cant be waived, nor can it be conferred on a court by agreement.

    if they have no standing, then there is no "case or controversy" as required by article III of the US constitution.

  • 37. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:54 am

    It looks like they have 21 days.

  • 38. Colleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 6:26 am

    amen, brotha.

  • 39. Carpool Cookie  |  April 26, 2011 at 6:48 am

    Plus….not everyone's so eager to mingle their finances these days, or hammer out an un-romantic prenup…the process of which could dampen their affection for each other.

    I can imagine some straight men actually fainting dead away if it were assumed they were marrying long term girlfriends. They'd be like "WHOA!! I never said I was going to MARRY her!!!"

    Can you imagine the outcry?

  • 40. Bill H  |  April 26, 2011 at 6:56 am

    Jeffrey Toobin at CNN has a surprising take on what Judge Walker "should" have done. While I completely disagree with him, I wonder how many others will think the same: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/26/california

  • 41. Sagesse  |  April 26, 2011 at 7:32 am

    Judge Walker's relationship was hinted at the time his sexual orientation was first discussed in the press. It was said he attended bar events with a male partner, a physician. The fact that it was a long term committed relationship of 10 years isn't all new news. And no one knows what parts of these revelations were included in the 'open secret' within the SF legal community. It's probably safe to assume that Boies and Olson and Cooper were well aware of whatever there was to know from the beginning.

  • 42. Jim  |  April 26, 2011 at 8:08 am

    If these groups are found to have no standing in the appeal of Prop 8, then I question how could they have standing to appeal Judge Walker residing over the case. Wouldn't the State of CA be the one's to appeal Judge Walker residing over the case, even though we all know the state won't do that?

  • 43. Rhie  |  April 26, 2011 at 8:22 am

    Scribin…

  • 44. AB  |  April 26, 2011 at 8:22 am

    Yeah, I didn't catch it in time to let you know, but I always try to find the answer before I ask you. I figure you are pretty busy. And before I posted the question I came across the CA ND rule that says the reply brief is due 21 days before the hearing. But the hearing date is not set (one has been proposed by Cooper and Co, but nothing is finalized so far as I know) and that would leave a REALLY long time between the filing of the brief and the deadline for the filing of the opposition brief. So, I wondered if maybe the deadlines for this sort of brief were funky.

  • 45. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Yes.. 21 days before hearing and you're correct that the hearing hasn't been finalized. It's customary to set a hearing date when filing the motion, based on the judge's calendar. But it's ultimately up to the Court what the hearing date will be, or if a hearing is even required.

  • 46. AB  |  April 26, 2011 at 8:32 am

    See, this is precisely the fear I have been articulating. What Toobin's analysis–which is completely misguided–fails to take into account is that for Walker to say he was in a relationship would not just implicate his own privacy interests, but also that of his partner.

    Toobin says it is best practice to be open whenever possible. And that is one thing when a judge might have to tell attorneys "You know what, I will hear this sex discrimination case, but you should know that I am a woman," or "I will hear this affirmative action case, but you should know that I am Black," or when they disclose their finances. But it's quite another when the disclosure means the judge saying "You know what, I will hear this gay marriage case, but you should know that the guy that I am always hanging out with in public is my partner."

    In short, coming out is an intensely personal, intimate process, and it should not be sped up by someones job, or someone's spouse's job. And for Toobin to assert otherwise is just plain ignorant. How a person who fails to overlook something as sensitive as that ever got a law degree–and was ever charged with furthering American jurisprudence–is beyond me. What a schmuck.

  • 47. Fr. Bill  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Please excuse the repost it was posted on a long string a few days ago.

    The opponents of marriage equality may want the Prop 8 case delayed as long as possible – it comes with a factual record that is difficult to ignore. They also may want the DOMA cases to get to SCOTUS as quickly as possible (certainly before the 9th Circuit rules on Prop 8). That would give the conservative judges on the Supreme Court an easier case to establish precedent opposing strict scrutiny and finding a rational basis that would put marriage quality to bed for years.

    Kathleen, what do you think?

  • 48. AB  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:03 am

    In all honesty, I hope one isn't. Do we really need to sit through a hearing to decide this issue?
    Can Judge Ware tell the Plaintiffs he'd like their brief sooner? Like maybe in a few weeks? (If you couldn't tell, I am impatient.)

  • 49. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:09 am

    In all honesty, I have no idea what they're thinking.

    Frankly, I'm having a hard time seeing how this motion to vacate will delay anything, except in the highly unlikely case that it is actually granted. After all, the case is on hold in the 9th Circuit until they hear back from the CA SC, which isn't going to happen until this fall at the earliest.

  • 50. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:12 am

    Can Judge Ware tell the Plaintiffs he’d like their brief sooner? Like maybe in a few weeks?

    Yes, the judge can establish an expedited schedule, either as a result of one of the parties' request or of his own accord.

  • 51. AB  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:17 am

    The Washington Post has a really interesting take. Either I was just to spaced out to see it, or it hasn't been articulated yet.

    Their argument goes something like this: Proponents claimed that one of the main problems with allowing LGBT couples to marry is that it deistitutionalizes marriage; and so if a judge was heterosexual, but married, then they might see THEIR relationship as threatened; so, by the same logic, no married heterosexual person could hear the case, because they'd have a stake in the outcome (namely, preserving their own marriage). http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/pos

    Interesting, no?

  • 52. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:22 am

    I think a couple of people here have suggested that same reasoning. JC (one of the CA 18,000) for one? And someone else, I think.

  • 53. AB  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:27 am

    It has been a rough couple of days. Lol.

    Although, I read JC's analysis differently. I thought he was saying that no judge could judge period, because the Prop 8 side said all of society was implicated. In other words, that there was a general danger to all people, so all people had a stake in the fight, and therefore no person could be the judge. I didn't take from his that he was talking about the deinstitutionalization of marriage or whether a straight judge's marriage constituted a stake. Although, the two arguments do get at the same thing.

    To me, another really interesting question is: if this logic is right, then could a married judge ever rule on a divorce case? But I KNOW I have read that argument on here.

  • 54. Straight for Equalit  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:27 am

    !!!

  • 55. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:30 am

    I might have misunderstood. Trying to follow all the ridiculous conclusions that naturally flow from taking Proponents' absurd position makes my head spin. :)

  • 56. Felyx  |  April 26, 2011 at 11:02 am

    If the judge can't date someone of the same gender, be a transsexual interested in either gender, be married to the opposite gender or be dating a person of the opposite gender (with the presumption that a future marriage will be harmed… possibly irrevocably… who knows) or be a single person who might one day get involved with someone who has a gender… then I guess the only possible unbiased judge would be one that is a polygamist married to both genders at the same time!!!
    (Kinda like being at the bottom of the slippery slope trying, like Sisyphus, to make it unslippery again.)

  • 57. Felyx  |  April 26, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Maybe if the judge was a pedophile priest who never intended to marry… would that count?

    /sarcasm

  • 58. Felyx  |  April 26, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Another possible serious explanation:

    Frequently investors will continue to invest in clearly losing investments. (This is where we get the expression throwing good money after bad.)

    Scientific experimentation can and has proven that the more that is invested in a thing or idea or whatever, the greater the chances are that the person investing will continue to invest more regardless of reality. There are many religious cults that continue to predict the date of the 'end of the world'. When the date comes and goes the followers do not abandon the cult but rather, set a new date and proselytize all the harder…. it is a common trait. The same one that is responsible for gambler's addictions.

    So there you go… crazy, stupid and addicted to failure as well! (How many do you suppose are manic or otherwise mental to boot?…!!!)

  • 59. karen in kalifornia  |  April 26, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Does this mean that if Prop8 gets to SCOTUS then the Catholic justices will have to recluse themselves? LOL. Someone ask Magge and Pugo that.

  • 60. Sagesse  |  April 26, 2011 at 11:32 am

    I'm just waiting for Judge Walker's partner's name to be splashed all over the national press. While they're in the harassment, invasion of privacy and vilifying business. Just 'cause they can.

  • 61. Bill  |  April 26, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Remember that if Walker and his partner want to avail themselves of the rights California confers, they can get a civil union today. The only difference is they can not call it a marriage. I assume that as an attorney and his partner as a physician are not too hung up on words.

    California has not repealed the legal rights of marriage. They still exist, but under another term.

    Also from the polls, all one had to do to play it safe was to get married before the election in Nov. If you wanted to, you should not have waited for the vote at that time.

    If you subsequently wanted to get married, you do have a problem. But if you want to avail yourself of the rights of marriage, California allows you to right now. You may have to settle for a term other than marriage right now, if you want the legal rights. The access to those rights may be a compromise, but if necessary, don't get hung up on a word. Just some Dutch uncle advice.

  • 62. PoxyHowzes  |  April 26, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Toobin makes a very silly assumption: That if Judge Walker felt comfortable after his retirement in admitting he is gay, then (per Toobin) he probably should have felt just as comfortable while he was still on the bench!

    What if (as suggested by others) Walker didn't want to come out while he was still on the job? What if he long ago decided that his best policy while he was picking up a federal paycheck was, in fact "Dont Ask, Don't Tell?" — a policy enshrined in law for a good many federal employees,

    Having decided to live by a DADT rubric, what was he to say when this case came his way in a random court assignment?

    Disclaimer: All this is entirely hypothetical on my part, (as it probably in on Toobin's). I know nothing about Judge Walker's thinking except what he has said: That it never occurred to him to in any way recuse himself.

  • 63. PoxyHowzes  |  April 26, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    HTML fail. Only the word "after" was intended for emphasis.

  • 64. tomato  |  April 26, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Double amen! Yeshua ben Yusef would not recognize what his teaching has become – a bastardized excuse for selfishness and self-aggrandizement.

  • 65. tomato  |  April 26, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Dutch Uncle –

    I'm one of the "California 18,000," and the word "marriage" and the signature of our minister on our certificate are very meaningful.

    Our minister could not have signed a civil union certificate, and the record of that civil union would not have been protected under the laws of privacy.

    (Someone cannot walk into the records division and request a list of the names and addresses of everyone who married, but they can for civil unions and domestic partnerships in most states – CU and DP fall into the corporation and business slots.)

    Luckily, we knew 3 years ago that we wanted to marry. There are people wanting to marry now who might not have even met 3 years ago, or who might have only been dating at the time.

    Are we going to chastize people for not leaping pell-mell into a lifetime commitment during a 5 month window? Isn't it better to be responsible citizens and marry when you are ready to commit?

  • 66. Straight for Equalit  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    If Judge Walker had not been in a ten-year relationship he might be just as likely to want to marry someday, but NOM says the problem is only the relationship. NOM says the fact that he is gay is not a problem. As has been pointed out before, he had opportunities to marry during those ten years. But if he had just met someone recently he would not have had that chance. I don't see the logic in NOM's argument. (Not surprising.)

  • 67. John  |  April 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    I'd really worry if you said you *did* follow their illogic. :)

  • 68. Michael Ejercito  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    For a contrary view, read Jack Marshall's post .

    The problem was not Judge Walker’s homosexuality, which in itself should not raise reasonable doubts about his ability to be fair and impartial, but his long term same sex relationship. He had a duty to disclose this at the outset, and based on the standard articulated above, was ethically bound to recuse himself. Not doing so was a breach of judicial ethics.

    On another post in this blog as well as other blogs , I gave an example of a female judge hearing a sex discrimination suit against a school that her daughter attends. It may not require recusal, but it does require disclosure, and failure to disclose would require vacatur of the ruling, because a failure to disclose would "appear to create a conflict of interest". Herrington v. Sonoma County
    , 834 F.2d 1488, 1502 (9th Cir. 1987) and provide a basis that the judge's “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 at 548

  • 69. Michael Ejercito  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    If the judge can’t date someone of the same gender, be a transsexual interested in either gender, be married to the opposite gender or be dating a person of the opposite gender (with the presumption that a future marriage will be harmed… possibly irrevocably… who knows) or be a single person who might one day get involved with someone who has a gender… then I guess the only possible unbiased judge would be one that is a polygamist married to both genders at the same time!!!
    (Kinda like being at the bottom of the slippery slope trying, like Sisyphus, to make it unslippery again.)

    It is only slippery if you refuse to consider the binding interpretations of Rule 455.

    Would judges with children in public school be automatically disqualified from hearing lawsuits against public school boards? Of course,not. But if the suit directly involves a school which the judges' children attend, they have to disclose and, depending on the specifics of the case, they may have to recuse themselves.

    But what is clear that judges' failure to disclose such facts would be grounds for vacatur, regardless of whether the parties would have waived recusal had disclosure been timely./

  • 70. Michael Ejercito  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    But there’s a flaw: If he was going to get married, why didn’t he when he had the chance? He has a partner, that doesn’t mean he WILL get married. There’s no engagement, nothing to indicate he WILL get married, so there’s no sign of conflict of interest. Otherwise where does it end? Would a judge have to disclose that somewhere sometime in some alternate reality every judge might possibly benefit from any law? There wouldn’t be any judges left to be able to judge anything!

    Had he disclosed his relationship, he could have explained the mitigating factors which would justify denying a motion to recuse.

    As Aaron Worthing pointed out

    And the fact he didn’t [disclose his relationship] becomes a cause to vacate the ruling where if he disclosed there might not have been [cause to vacate the ruling].

  • 71. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    It's going to take them that long to stop laughing.

  • 72. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    I think you're right Felyx, and in addition I think the NOM leadership hired Cooper thinking he could make a difference with their poor arguments and now they're crying, "Do something! Do something!" and this is what he thought of to do. It's all billable hours to him.

  • 73. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Yeah. Good luck with that. Gay judges aren't required to disclose their relationships, anymore than straight ones are, or whether their wives or daughters have ever had abortions, or if they have any relatives who might be convicted under their new ruling. You guys are going to have another very humiliating "Where's Delores?" moment again on 7/11….that is, if the Court even opts to hear this motion. I'm very much looking forward to it.

  • 74. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 26, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    I understand they're training dolphins for the international tribunal at The Hague, because now all humans have to recuse themselves from hearing human rights cases.

  • 75. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 26, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Charming attempt, except the presumption that Walker wants to marry is entirely hypothetical and one doesn't need to disclose things that don't exist. For all you sex-negative NOMbies know, he's already married,possibly to a female, or polyamorous, or (as someone pointed out earlier) has the same revulsion for marriage as the majority of straight couples who now prefer to cohabit rather than make it legal. This "fantasy brief" is just more proof that the Proponents can't keep their minds out of other people's panties.

  • 76. Alan E.  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Read this article about the NOH8 campaign. It seems they aren’t reporting things correctly (and by drastic measures) to the IRS.

    http://diversitynewspublications.com/2011/03/noh8-campaign-finally-an-approved-non-profit-organization-in-ca/

    I started doing the math..and there’s an amazing amount cash
    that allegedly seems to have taken in at 40 bucks a whack…10,000 pics
    at $40 is about $400,000 and that doesn’t include merchandising –
    tshirts and donations

    The NOH8 Campaign IRS reports are not showing the truth. They reported $44,644 as total earnings and $37,491 as expenditures.

  • 77. Ronnie  |  April 26, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    & You have already been told that you are wrong…..ok moving on…. > / …..Ronnie

  • 78. Ronnie  |  April 26, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    You have been already told that you are wrong…please stop posting the same the same thing over & over again.

    > / ….Ronnie

  • 79. Ronnie  |  April 26, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    Correct Elizabeth, which has been told to Mr. "I only have a BA in Finance (NOT law) & work as a realtor" Ejercito over & over & over again. He refuses to accept that he is wrong….<3…Ronnie

  • 80. Sagesse  |  April 26, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    If Eden can say it, I can say it.

    Michael Ejercito is a moron. For days now, as I read e-mail to catch up on this site, I have to slog though 25 ignorant, uneducated messages from Michael and the 25 responses from people here who inexplicably cannot resist engaging with him. It is an annoying waste of my time, and I appeal to the posters here to stop feeding the troll… since appealing to the troll is pointless. You're ruining my day.

    None of the above is an insult. They are statements of fact.

  • 81. Kathleen  |  April 27, 2011 at 12:02 am

    There's much in that article that is mis-leading, imo. First, note that the IRS form cited is an initial filing for the organization, presumably when they first started up, and only covers a 4-1/2 month period from mid-August, 2009 to the end of Dec, 2009, so that isn't a year's earnings.

    Secondly, in the early days of the campaign there was no charge for the photos [as acknowledged by Esther Goldberg, the original source of this story: "I even posed for my pic back when it was free." http://bit.ly/i96t9a ]. Even now, there is no charge for many of the photos. I'm sure the celebrities don't pay for their photos and I know I didn't; mine was a free perk for attending the Clippers Equality Night, an event benefiting EQCA. There must be others. And if IIRC, the merchandising is also a newer addition.

    From the same story linked above, "Charges for pics..an extra charge for airbrushing" Not true. All photos are airbrushed, and if you paid for the photo, that's included in the cost. Goldberg also questions why they couldn't be found listed in a non-profit database, but those questions seem to be from a time when the org was still in the process of getting their 501(c)(3) status and hadn't yet been approved.

    As to what the campaign is funding, I've always assumed that the dissemination of the photos and the message carried on the merchandise IS the campaign – the educational nature of them.. and that the money goes to the cost of producing them, including the travel expenses and salaries for the photographer and assistants.

    Now, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be asking these questions. We absolutely should and everyone needs to decide where they want their money to go. However, I don't think the article is painting an accurate picture.

    For me, I'll wait to see what the org shows on its 2010 IRS filings and decide if those figures raise questions.

  • 82. AnonyGrl  |  April 27, 2011 at 12:17 am

    Michael, you are like a broken record. This point has been addressed. Go back and re-read the other threads.

    Sexuality, like race, does not require disclosure, recusal or even noticing in and of itself. No one would require that a straight judge reveal a long term relationship as a precursor to judging this case either,

    Done and done.

  • 83. Sheryl Carver  |  April 27, 2011 at 1:13 am

    Good morning, Sagesse!

    As I replied to AB in a different post, one cannot have any real hope of getting through to a person who is determined to cling to an irrational belief/position. Same situation with people who never outgrew the childish desire to stir up trouble. M. E. appears to fit both categories.

    Until we get a good "ignore" function &/or people stop feeding him, or Adam bans him for the commenting equivalent of spamming (PLEASE, Adam!), I think we are stuck. It's easy to just not read his comments when on the P8TT site, but much more painful when one is getting email updates.

    I feel your pain. :-(

  • 84. Michael Ejercito  |  April 27, 2011 at 2:28 am

    Charming attempt, except the presumption that Walker wants to marry is entirely hypothetical and one doesn’t need to disclose things that don’t exist. For all you sex-negative NOMbies know, he’s already married,possibly to a female, or polyamorous, or (as someone pointed out earlier) has the same revulsion for marriage as the majority of straight couples who now prefer to cohabit rather than make it legal. This “fantasy brief” is just more proof that the Proponents can’t keep their minds out of other people’s panties.

    Oh please. Walker admitted to being in a long term, same-sex relationship six months after the final judgment.

    He was required to disclose this information because it was relevant to the question of disqualification.
    Once again,

  • 85. John  |  April 27, 2011 at 2:29 am

    We'll see. The court has the issue. They know the law better than some here.

  • 86. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 2:30 am

    Once again…no it wasn't & no he wasn't….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 87. Michael Ejercito  |  April 27, 2011 at 2:48 am

    Yeah. Good luck with that. Gay judges aren’t required to disclose their relationships, anymore than straight ones are

    They are required to disclose their relationships if it could be reason to question "impartiality" Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 at 548 See also Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. , 486 U.S. 847 at 860 (noting that "[t]he goal of section 455(a) is to avoid even the appearance of partiality.")

    In the sex discrimination example I gave in comment 78, the judge in that example is required to disclose her daughter's attendance at the school, because her daughter might directly and immediately benefit (or suffer) from the ruling.

  • 88. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 2:53 am

    echo…echo…."In the blah blah blah example I gave in comments 1, 2, 10, 100, 666 & so on & so forth"

    no he does not…… > / ….ronnie

  • 89. fiona64  |  April 27, 2011 at 2:58 am

    Michael, please DISCLOSE WHERE YOU RECEIVED YOUR LAW DEGREE.

    Or admit that you don't have one and just STFU. Your "points" have been countered and dismissed repeatedly by those with REAL legal educations.

    YOU. ARE. WRONG.

    Capisce?

  • 90. AnonyGrl  |  April 27, 2011 at 3:07 am

    Michael, are you just going to keep bringing that school example up again and again until out of sheer frustration someone says "OK fine!"?

    You will have a long wait on that. We've answered that one over and over and over and we do not agree. A daughter in a school is a VERIFIABLE FACT. Judge Walker's desire to get married is the PROPONENTS' FANTASY.

  • 91. Michael Ejercito  |  April 27, 2011 at 3:49 am

    Sexuality, like race, does not require disclosure, recusal or even noticing in and of itself. No one would require that a straight judge reveal a long term relationship as a precursor to judging this case either,

    The issue is not sexuality, but a long-term committed relationship.

    Jack Marshall understood this. In this post he wrote

    As in all such cases in which the news media chooses to publicize information it should not, the claim will be that “the public has a right to know.” Why? Is there a presumption that a gay judge is more likely to rule that Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California, is unconstitutional? There shouldn’t be, if Walker is a good judge, and nothing in his record suggests he isn’t. If Walker felt personal considerations would interfere with his objective assessment of the legal issues, he would be bound to recuse himself from the case. He hasn’t.

    After the relationship was revealed, he wrote

    Reluctantly, I have to agree that his disclosure, a year after his ruling, that he was in a committed relationship with a man when he was ruling on Proposition 8 alters that conclusion [that he did not have to recuse]. A straightforward application of the judicial ethics rules compels the conclusion that Walker should have recused himself from taking part in the Perry case….The problem was not Judge Walker’s homosexuality, which in itself should not raise reasonable doubts about his ability to be fair and impartial, but his long term same sex relationship. He had a duty to disclose this at the outset, and based on the standard articulated above, was ethically bound to recuse himself. Not doing so was a breach of judicial ethics.

    Ed Whelan also wrote on this issue, albeit admitting that recusal is dependent on specific facts, implying that recusal might not have been necessary.

    As I’ve discussed, whether Walker’s recently reported same-sex relationship requires his recusal may well depend on facts that Walker has not seen fit to disclose.

  • 92. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 3:58 am

    & as has already been stated over & over & over again..his relationship is a result of his being gay…therefore you are attacking him for being gay…..

    please stop posting the same refuted bull over & over again…. > / ….Ronnie

  • 93. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 4:03 am

    & again…EVERY SINGLE judge that passed ruling in Loving v. Virginia would've had to recuse themselves because they all would have benefited from the ruling….NOBODY in American had a federal constitutional right to Interracial marriage, which was illegal, prior to Loving…after…EVERYBODY was granted that right, including the judges…… Keep it up TROLL…. > / …Ronnie

  • 94. Michael Ejercito  |  April 27, 2011 at 4:29 am

    & again…EVERY SINGLE judge that passed ruling in Loving v. Virginia would’ve had to recuse themselves because they all would have benefited from the ruling….NOBODY in American had a federal constitutional right to Interracial marriage, which was illegal, prior to Loving

    At the time of the Loving decision, anti-miscegenation laws were only in effect in sixteen states. Unless you can show that every single one of those justices lived in one of those sixteen states at the time of the decision, you are wrong.

  • 95. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 4:38 am

    It is not about "at the time" it is about they didn't have the right to…NOBODY DID….therefore there was a possibility that they would have benefited from it….you are the one that is wrong as has been proven over & over & over again.

    Go away or STFU….TROLL!!!!!….. > I ….Ronnie

  • 96. AnonyGrl  |  April 27, 2011 at 4:46 am

    MIchael, you have been answered. Repeatedly. Clearly. Firmly. And every time you have brought it up again, with every other commentator's words, the answer is still the same.

    I am done with this question. Go back and read those answers and please, stop asking the same question over and over?

  • 97. Ann S.  |  April 27, 2011 at 5:04 am

    Perez v. Sharp was the California Supreme Court equivalent of Loving v. Virginia. All CA Supreme Court justices are residents of California and the justices at the time were all potential beneficiaries of their own decision.

    Not that I think it will do any good, except perhaps for lurkers and other onlookers.

  • 98. fiona64  |  April 27, 2011 at 5:32 am

    WHERE DID YOU GO TO LAW SCHOOL, MICHAEL??

  • 99. b b  |  April 27, 2011 at 5:34 am

    Why would a successful motion to vacate "end the case"? If the decision in favor of the plaintiffs is vacated, it wouldn't automatically result in a decision in favor of defendants. They'd have to go back and re-try the case.

  • 100. Michael Ejercito  |  April 27, 2011 at 5:44 am

    This is true.

    As a practical matter, the issue would be presented to the Supreme Court, and given similar cases in Texas and Massachusetts on the appellate rung directly below the Supreme Court, the Supremes would most likely simply hold the issue in abeyance until they decide whether to grant cert to the Texas and/or Massachusetts cases. A Supreme Court ruling on the merits in either of those cases would make vacatur of the district court decision a minor formality, because the district court would simply issue a one-page summary judgment ruling following the recent Supreme Court decision.

  • 101. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 5:57 am

    & whatever judge the case was assigned to would have to disclose (based on all of the cockeyed shenanigans that are going on) whether he/she was pro-LGBT or anti-LGBT or doesn't care…..the "doesn't care" would maybe, just maybe mean that he/she can be impartial, not rule based on personal bias, & cannot maybe, possibly, sort've benefit AT ALL from the ruling in any aspect of his/her personal, private, public, ect. etc. etc. life.

    ; ) ….Ronnie

  • 102. Sapphocrat  |  April 27, 2011 at 5:58 am

    Do you have any idea how many times you've shot your own argument to hell (and not merely by its coma-inducing repetition)?

    You: "Would judges with children in public school be automatically disqualified from hearing lawsuits against public school boards? Of course,not. But if the suit directly involves a school which the judges’ children attend, they have to disclose and, depending on the specifics of the case, they may have to recuse themselves."

    What you're really saying is that Judge Walker should be disqualified if he has a direct interest in the case, which he does not — unless, of course, he plans to marry Ms. Perry, Ms. Stier, Mr. Katami, or Mr. Zarillo.

    After all, the NOMbies argue — and you should know this, since you appear to be so intimately acquainted with them and their shenanigans — that if the plaintiffs prevail, the ruling should apply only to the plaintiffs.

    That, of course, is absurd — but if you're going to argue on behalf of the anti-gays, you'd better take all their wacky tactics into account. You can't have it both ways (at least, not if you expect anyone to take you even half-seriously).

    In the end, your school analogy is a complete dud. Judge Walker doesn't have a "child" in the same "school" in the case over which he presided.

    So, please, find some other irrelevant, half-baked argument to belabor for a while. I'm sure we'd all appreciate some new material in your act. Or did you not notice that most of your audience has left the lounge, and the few remaining are sound asleep?

  • 103. Kate  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:00 am

    Nope, Ronnie. S/he would have to "care" about a specific religion.

  • 104. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:06 am

    I mean we certainly cannot….CANNOT!!!…have a straight judge whose life long best friend that he/she grew up with, shared lunches with, spent spring break with, was there for him/her when he/she got married as a best man or maid of honor, is the godfather/mother of his children, so on & so forth …you know, all those memorable moments of life….be….GASPS!!!!….Gay??????!!!!

    (runs out of the house screaming)….AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

    XP…..Ronnie

  • 105. Sapphocrat  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:23 am

    First, California does not have civil unions; we have domestic partnerships.

    No, a DP is not just marriage by another name; I won't go into the symbolic meaning of the word itself (which is indeed crucial), nor will I run down the laundry list of legal differences (my blogging days are just about over), but I will name just one: portability. My marriage is recognized in half a dozen other states (and nations); a DP would not be. That makes a big difference in deciding, for instance, where my wife and I will be safe traveling, or whether we can do business with an out-of-state company (e.g., insurance) — will our marriage, and our rights, be recognized or not?

    Sign me: One of the 18K who has lived the difference since the summer of 2008.

  • 106. AnonyGrl  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:28 am

    If a judge's second cousin's (once removed) Sunday School teacher's alternate mail carrier knew a Nascar driver who had a fling with a woman named Myra who once sold Avon products to the wife of a guy who grew up in a suburb of Hartford, Connecticut, where marriage equality exists, then we should take the judge out and shoot them at dawn rather than risk actually letting that judge be capable of making an informed decision about whether he or she could do her job.

    Other than that, we should probably say that this whole topic is nonsense.

    I do hope that any judge who actually has to RULE on this motion smacks Cooper down hard. This should make "Where's Delores?" look like the Congressional Medal of Honor.

  • 107. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:30 am

    Or we certainly cannot….CANNOT!!!!… have a judge that went to school with someone who was openly gay when they were in school but they lost contact….but that judge was once cool with that person a long time ago…they were homies….yo..yo…fo shizzle…

    "Hello my name is Judge (so & so) & I once hung out with someone who was openly gay…..We were cool….we pumped up the jam a moment or two…but we lost contact…anyway…I just thought I would disclose that just incase…but since I certainly cannot remain partial because I listen to Duran Duran with a gay guy once upon a time I will recuse my self because I simply cannot be impartial…yo"

    XP ….Ronnie

  • 108. fiona64  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:41 am

    And where, again, did you attend law school, Michael?

  • 109. b b  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:49 am

    What are you talking about? There couldn't possibly be a case about California's Prop 8 in Tex. or Mass. There are Mass. cases about DOMA, not Prop 8, which is a separate issue. This is absurd.

  • 110. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:49 am

    "Hellow My name is Judge (so & so)…I'm straight & I watched 'Brokeback Mountain'…It was a good movie…..I felt the trials & tribulations of the guys in 'The Broken Hearts Club'….Come on who doesn't get a kick out of 'To Wong Foo'?…..& I think those guys that played dress up with Audrey Hepburn in 'My Fair Lady' were a charming closeted couple….so I am afraid that I must recuse myself because I am a straight judge that enjoys movies that have gay characters"

    XP …..Ronnie

  • 111. AnonyGrl  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:54 am

    LOL

    Ronnie, if ever I get "On The Bus" put together in a single script form, I am STEALING some of your stuff, just so you know.
    :)

    I will make sure to give you and Mom tickets to the premier, though… I want to see you in one of your designs walking down the red carpet!

  • 112. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 27, 2011 at 6:55 am

    …and I'm loving that, in scheduling a hearing on the matter today, Judge Ware requested the parties address how the motion should be addressed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a), which essentially says he doesn't have the power to vacate the decision at the moment because the case is currently under appeal. So poor Michael's lame insistences are all going to be for naught, anyway. Poor, poor Michael.

    And yeah, I also hope Cooper gets his Delores handed to him. I think he will.

  • 113. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 27, 2011 at 7:01 am

    But Anonygrl, that's what Michael does, is repeat! He doesn't think or write himself, he just cuts 'n' pastes other people's thoughts and writings and ravings here. You can't ask him to stop repeating when that's his raison d'être! What else can the poor man do?

    He must be a thrill at parties, is all I can say. Repeat,rinse, repeat. Yawn.

  • 114. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 27, 2011 at 7:14 am

    Personal relationships don't factor into impartiality or disclosure. Never have. Name one case where a judge had to disclose marital status to rule on a family law case. Doesn't happen, just like the judge who ruled in the McCourts divorce case doesn't have to disclose whether or not he has Dodger tickets (and I'm sure David Boies, Jamie McCourt's attorney,would have made him do so if such things were relevant.

    The fact that's going to be so thorny for you is that judges are presumed to be impartial DESPITE their personal relations, and if a party to a case is going to attempt to impeach a judge on that basis, they'd better have solid evidence for their claims. At least something better than, "he might possibly have wanted to get married."

    In case you didn't figure it out from all the proceedings in this case so far, allegations, ungrounded arguments, and huffiness aren't enough to win a case in court. But hey, if Cooper's willing to take your money and risk his professional credibility on this dumb motion, then hey…more power to him. I'll enjoy watching this play out.

  • 115. Elizabeth Oakes  |  April 27, 2011 at 7:22 am

    And?? I think Vaughn walker is far more familiar with the requirements for recusal than you and your grumpy, losing friends, and I'm quite sure he wouldn't have been so stupid as to jeopardize MONTHS OF TEDIOUS WORK by mentioning his relationship if he knew it was going to be a legal issue.

    So you know why he did it, Michael? To piss you and those like you off. He knows it's not a valid legal concern and he's retired, so there's nothing you can do about it. And you're just dumb enough to not see it.

  • 116. AnonyGrl  |  April 27, 2011 at 7:33 am

    So that is how brainwashing works? Lather, rinse, repeat?
    :)

  • 117. Ronnie  |  April 27, 2011 at 8:31 am

    ; ) ….. Awesome…what could I design to wear for the big night….hmmm…I have to think about that….<3…Ronnie

  • 118. Rendia  |  April 27, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    This is why I don't go to church. I see the way religious people practice vs what the Bible actually says about how to act, and I just can't reconcile the two. So I believe in Christ, but not church.

    "I like Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~Ghandi

  • 119. Sagesse  |  April 27, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    Apologies if this has been posted and I missed it. Good article.

    Yes on 8: Gay judge’s ruling shouldn’t count
    http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/04/26/yes-on-

  • 120. fiona64  |  April 28, 2011 at 3:32 am

    Elizabeth, you win the entire internet. :-)

    Love,
    Fiona

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!