Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely right. The complaint about the judge's sexual orientation just exposes these people even more for their bigotry.
I wonder if they would have a problem with a heterosexual judge making a decision about heterosexual marriage. You know the answer to that one.
Deal with the world as it is, it's not so much that he is gay but he will directly benefit from his own ruling. He now cannot be married now but since he has a long term partner is it safe to assume that if marriage was legalized he would take advantage of it. He this would enjoy the tax benefits which enriches him.
Would we ask a female judge to recuse herself on rights for women, or a black judge to recuse himself on rights related to race?
Yes and yes...
Judge Constance Baker Motley is one such example of both applying, and she was asked to recuse herself, and even Ruth Baden Ginsberg was asked to recuse herself while hearing a case on abortion..
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Absolutely right. The complaint about the judge's sexual orientation just exposes these people even more for their bigotry.
On the contrary.. I dont understand why gays wouldnt want the case to be heard on its merits, and not challenged based upon the assurtion that the judge was gay.. Wouldnt it have made more sense for gays to ask for the judge to recuse himself just so the question of a conflict of interest wouldnt arrise?
I find it hysterically hypocritical that this issue is even brought up since most judges are heterosexual and rule on equal gay rights regularly.....gays say nothing....
One gay judge rules and the crybabies come outta the closet as evidenced in this thread.
No, actually it won't. And even if he did recuse himself, you guys act like it's a win for your anti-gay movement. Other judges would use the same reasoning he did, and Prop 8 would still be considered unconstitutional. You have absolutely no valid legal argument in this case.
Deal with the world as it is, it's not so much that he is gay but he will directly benefit from his own ruling. He now cannot be married now but since he has a long term partner is it safe to assume that if marriage was legalized he would take advantage of it. He this would enjoy the tax benefits which enriches him.
This case will be tossed out.
It will not be tossed out based on his sexual orientation. I can assure you of that.
The argument is ridiculous. If we follow the logic, Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from any case involving blacks, and Scalia should recuse himself from any case involving Italian-Americans. Ruth Ginsberg should recuse herself from any case involving Jews, and Sotomayor should recuse herself from any case involving Hispanics.
Quote:
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of law at UC Irvine and an expert in the federal constitution, said "there is no chance whatsover" that Walker's ruling would be voided because the judge failed to tell the backers of Proposition 8 that he was gay.
"No judge is going to say that another judge has a duty to declare his or her sexual orientation," the law professor said.
He said that would be akin to asking black judges to recuse themselves from race discrimination cases or female judges to remove themselves from litigation involving sex bias.
On the contrary.. I dont understand why gays wouldnt want the case to be heard on its merits, and not challenged based upon the assurtion that the judge was gay.. Wouldnt it have made more sense for gays to ask for the judge to recuse himself just so the question of a conflict of interest wouldnt arrise?
Have you read his reasoning? It was so solid, even the defense attorneys for Prop 8 threw their hands up in concession. No matter what happens with this judge, Prop 8 will still be deemed unconstitutional.
And I'm still not sure he can be considered biased based on his political views, and past rulings against gay rights. He is a conservative who was appointed by Republicans, and was criticized by Pelosi and others for striking down pro gay laws.
Definite and undisputable conflict of interest. A judge should recuse himself or herself in circumstances where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The judges failure to recues himself invalidates his biased ruling on Prop 8 as evidenced by the secrecy and non disclosure surrounding his own homosexuality.
Upon a motion for disqualification on the ground of bias, a judge should engage in a two-part analysis. The first step involves consideration of the judge’s subjective belief as to whether he or she can proceed to hear the matter free of bias or prejudice concerning the parties. If the answer to this is in the affirmative, the judge should consider whether, notwithstanding such actual impartiality, there is the appearance of bias sufficient to cast doubt upon the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s demeanor or actions would lead an objective observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge should recuse himself or herself.
Last edited by JobZombie; 04-25-2011 at 10:48 PM..
Definite and undisputable conflict of interest. A judge should recuse himself or herself in circumstances where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The judges failure to recues himself invalidates his biased ruling on Prop 8 as evidenced by the secrecy and non disclosure surrounding his own homosexuality.
Upon a motion for disqualification on the ground of bias, a judge should engage in a two-part analysis. The first step involves consideration of the judge’s subjective belief as to whether he or she can proceed to hear the matter free of bias or prejudice concerning the parties. If the answer to this is in the affirmative, the judge should consider whether, notwithstanding such actual impartiality, there is the appearance of bias sufficient to cast doubt upon the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s demeanor or actions would lead an objective observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge should recuse himself or herself.
So following this logic, every observant Catholic Justice on the Supreme Court must recuse himself on cases involving gays since the Church's teachings are clear. No African American judge could hear a case involving racial discrimination, no female judge could hear a case involving sex discrimination.
The test of appearance of bias is whether an objective observer viewing the circumstances would conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely. By keeping his homosexuality intentionally secret there is the appearance of bias sufficient to cast doubt upon the judge’s impartiality. Why did Walker intentionally conceal the fact that he is a homosexual and is in a 10 year relationship with another man?
Judge Walker is a staunch conservative. He's actually been criticized in the past for voting against gay rights. This was not a biased case.
Would we ask a female judge to recuse herself on rights for women, or a black judge to recuse himself on rights related to race?
Thats assuming that homosexuality, like being female or black, [of which I personally disagree and resent] is a natural occurence*. And therefore, no one is allowed to have a different viewpoint, lest be labeled homophobic, which is in itself a put-down, initiated by the gay community against anyone who disagrees with their ideology.
*There has been no conclusive scientific proof of such. And even if there was a claim, historically, frail human knowlege has been about as creditable in doing so as it has been in eradicating racism, war, crime, drug abuse and brain cancer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
