Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ElfLord

BYU grad one of three judges in Prop 8 trial

Recommended Posts

"Immoralist side"??

I would hope that judges on either side of the question would act fairly and in an unbiased manner, judging based on law and the constitution, not their personal feelings. I'm sure that's difficult to do, but that is what they are supposed to do. Hopefully, they will all do their job honorably.

Let's hope so.

My gripe with the system is that I wish these things would be scrutinized by the legal world BEFORE they hit the ballot and BEFORE people sink lots of money into them.

Share this post


Link to post

I find this so silly. If the government rules that they have no standing to appeal, they have, in effect disenfranchised the California electorate. The California people passed an amendment, and those elected to uphold that law refused to defend it, leaving it to those who drafted the law. If this panel does rule they are not allowed to appeal (which I personally doubt) then they should also rule that they didn't have standing to argue during the *first* ruling, and they would have to redo the whole thing from the start. :-p

Sorry, even laws voted on by the electorate are not allowed to stand if they violate the US Constitution. That's what the case is about.

And aren't you glad we have these checks and balances? Wouldn't it be terrible of 51% of a state could vote away your first amendment rights?

Share this post


Link to post

zeta you phrased the questions.

there is no contradiction.

each of you questions is about the state taking action to prevent ssm, that is irrational action by the state.

Brenda, chances are each side had a whole gaggle of lawyers who dissected the issue and made claims on whether the issue would survive judicial scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, even laws voted on by the electorate are not allowed to stand if they violate the US Constitution. That's what the case is about.

And aren't you glad we have these checks and balances? Wouldn't it be terrible of 51% of a state could vote away your first amendment rights?

The US constitution says absolutely nothing about Marriage. So how in the world could it be "Violated"?

Share this post


Link to post

The US constitution says absolutely nothing about Marriage. So how in the world could it be "Violated"?

I'm referring, of course, to Amendment XIV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, even laws voted on by the electorate are not allowed to stand if they violate the US Constitution. That's what the case is about.

And aren't you glad we have these checks and balances? Wouldn't it be terrible of 51% of a state could vote away your first amendment rights?

Wow, you completely misread what I wrote. Nowhere did I say I disliked the fact that the judiciary would review the law. What I disliked was the attempt to disenfranchise voters by removing their right to representation in the courts. Very different issues.

Share this post


Link to post

zeta you phrased the questions.

there is no contradiction.

I hope you realize this answer in no way helps me understand your previous one word answers.

each of you questions is about the state taking action to prevent ssm, that is irrational action by the state.

Why? What makes such action irrational?

Share this post


Link to post

ElfLord,

The U.S. Supreme Court has found that marriage is a fundamental right. (For more information about what makes something a fundamental right, visit wikipedia.) The plaintiffs in the case propose that ssm is encompassed by this fundamental right. The district judge concurred and even ruled that it is *irrational* to suppose otherwise. From my understanding of the issue, that is likely not going to stand, and this new panel of judges will probably overturn that decision. What is not clear is whether they will then find another reason to invalidate Prop. 8.

Share this post


Link to post

The US constitution says absolutely nothing about Marriage. So how in the world could it be "Violated"?

Many things are not specifically written by the God inspired hands of founding Fathers. Despite the lack of specific wording in the original God inspired Constitution, the Courts - whose duty it is to interpret the law - has found that things not specifically mention are found.

many things we all benefit from were not in the Original text.

Share this post


Link to post

Get ready for the accusations to Fly:

http://www.sltrib.co...-court.html.csp

There's going to be some deep fried spuds in this one!

Good article, and fascinating (and fantastic) news that one of the judges is a BYU grad. Does anyone know if that means he's LDS? (I hope he is.)

What types of accusations do you believe are going to start flying, ElfLord?

Darin

Share this post


Link to post

zeta you phrased the questions.

there is no contradiction.

Oh boy.

Share this post


Link to post

I hope you realize this answer in no way helps me understand your previous one word answers.

try reading the as total the sum of the post that responds to you.

there is no contradiction in my one word response, all of your questions were concerning the state taking some kind of action against ssm, and I feel such action is irrational.

a state has no interest in what goes in the bedrooms of two consenting adults, whether it be how, where and what, they use to pleasure each other (see Texas ban on certain things) nor does a state have a interest in removing the right of one group of people to marry a person of their own choosing whilst allowing another group of people to marry a person of their own choosing.

tradition has no bearing else, separate but equal would still be the law de jour. and forget separate but equal, where is the tradition that I as a male, had exclusive ownership of my domain, include spouse, child and bond servants?

the issue of in Ca. was largely if not lopsidedly pushed by religion and based on religious reasons, religion currently, by Divine design, has no place in the Law or Courts. The letter from the BYU was student was mostly correct, where were all the religious based claims when it came to defending prop 8 in court?

Share this post


Link to post

Darin,

I was specifically thinking about when the Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional all the hubub about the Judge being Gay.

If the Ninth Circuit over rules, I estimate the other side making a big deal about him being from BYU and possibly Mormon.

Of course, the Panel is stacked 2 to 1. So perhaps him being on the "randomly" chosen panel is just to quell the Yes-on8s so they cant complain the panel wasn't impartial.

Share this post


Link to post

Darin,

I was specifically thinking about when the Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional all the hubub about the Judge being Gay.

It will be interesting if the situation plays out according to that line of thought. I sure hope the pro-gay community doesn't jump on the idoitic bandwagon of "attack the judge's impartiality" because you don't agree with his ruling--especially when the anti-gay side made such a hubbub over Walker's alleged sexual orientation and defended his ability to hand down an impartial ruling.

If the Ninth Circuit over rules, I estimate the other side making a big deal about him being from BYU and possibly Mormon.

Of course, this thought presumes that the judge who is a BYU graduate (and potentially LDS) has already made his choice and would rule against gay marriage. I personally wouldn't presume that of his ruling, and trust that, regardless of his religion, he will seek to do his duty by remaining as impartial as anyone could prior to hearing the merits of the case.

As I said, I'm glad at least one conservative related to BYU (and potentially the LDS Faith) is included, regardless of any of their ruling. Diversity in the court of appeals should be welcome. (I suspect that, regardless of this Appealate Court's decision, the 'loosing' side will still attempt to appeal the case to the Federal Supreme Court--and I don't mind acknowledging my hope that the case will eventually wind its way there).

Of course, the Panel is stacked 2 to 1.

EDITED (after Jaybear posted his response, below): I second JB's comments that follow below on this point, as well.

So perhaps him being on the "randomly" chosen panel is just to quell the Yes-on8s so they cant complain the panel wasn't impartial.

Your use of the quotation marks around the word "randomly" is curious. Do you mean to say you doubt the mechanisms the court has in place to randomly assign judges in the Appealate system...? Who do you believe would be making such foreordained-but-covert, deliberately deceptive decisions (saying the process is "random," when, in your view, it is actually suspect that someone is consciously making selectiosn to "quell the Yes-on-8's" potential "complaints" about the "impartiality of the panel")?

Darin

Share this post


Link to post

Darin,

I was specifically thinking about when the Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional all the hubub about the Judge being Gay.

If the Ninth Circuit over rules, I estimate the other side making a big deal about him being from BYU and possibly Mormon.

I certainly don't expect those who insisted that Walker should have recused himself to make the same demand of the Mormon judge, as such criticism was not obviously not motivated by principles of judicial integrity, but by sour grapes.

Of course, the Panel is stacked 2 to 1.

In what way is the panel stacked 2 to 1? I suspect there are three heterosexual judges and no gay judges. I see three men, and no women. I see three white guys, and no minorities.

So perhaps him being on the "randomly" chosen panel is just to quell the Yes-on8s so they cant complain the panel wasn't impartial.

What on earth would motivate you to impugn the integrity of the clerk of the 9th circuit court, and imply that he tampered with the empaneling process?

Share this post


Link to post

Darin,

The reason I put "quotes" around it is because while reading articles about it yesterday I had read a blog which was contemplating the idea. (Sorry can't find the article at the moment)

In what way is the panel stacked 2 to 1? I suspect there are three heterosexual judges and no gay judges. I see three men, and no women. I see three white guys, and no minorities.

Again this was contemplated yesterday by an article I linked earlier.

No on 8:

Looks like the lineup on the 9th Circuit court is going to be Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and N. Randy Smith. Both Reinhardt and Hawkins have tended to be very left-leaning in the past and were appointed by Presidents Carter and Clinton respectively. Smith, appointed by President Bush 3 years ago, tends to be left leaning

Share this post


Link to post

Darin,

The reason I put "quotes" around it is because while reading articles about it yesterday I had read a blog which was contemplating the idea. (Sorry can't find the article at the moment)

I'm interested in reading the article to hear where that idea had it's genesis. Please do share the link when you find it.

Again this was contemplated yesterday by an article I linked earlier.

No on 8:

http://prideinutah.com/

Its stacked because 2 of the Judges seam to be left leaning already.

From my perspective, there is a world of difference between "stacking" the judges (something that occurs before their selection and appointment to a case, and implies willful, conscious deceit by someone selecting the judges to attempt to direct a ruling towards a specific outcome), and "analysts attempting to predict" the judges potential ruling (something that occurs after their random selection and appointment to the case, and is based on the historical precident set by each judge's previous rulings).

Did the article you mention suggest "stacking" the judges? Or merely "predicting" how the judges would rule?

Do you see a difference between the two?

Darin

Share this post


Link to post

My mistake... it was a comment by someone else on a story... Google displayed the offending portion in the search results and I took it as the subject of the article.

Sounds like (4+ / 0-) Recommended by:shakti, slksfca, ramara, KenBee

Sounds like one judge who has likely already prejudged the case to "their"

side, one who has likely already prejudged the case to "our" side, and one

judge who is going to be poring over the details of the case with a fine

tooth comb.I guess that's fair, but the set of judges pretty seems to

pretty much guarantee an appeal (not that appeals weren't in this case's

future anyway).

This was a random selection?!?!?

Gassho _/\_

Share this post


Link to post

I see no reason why a BYU graduate can not hear the arguments presented by both sides and reach a fair and impartial decision.

Share this post


Link to post

LOL... How did I know N. Randy Smith was the LDS right off the bat?

Because so many Mormons are ... randy? :crazy::fool:;) (Sorry; weird mood today; couldn't resist.)

And yes, MNG, I'm with ya, my irrelevant (irreverent) diversion notwithstanding, I'm not sure what it is with the whole "First Initial, Middle Name Thing" in Mormondom. :P

Sincerely yours,

-K. Karl Gourdin (Hey, I kinda like it!)

Share this post


Link to post

Because so many Mormons are ... randy? :crazy::fool:;) (Sorry; weird mood today; couldn't resist.)

And yes, MNG, I'm with ya, my irrelevant (irreverent) diversion notwithstanding, I'm not sure what it is with the whole "First Initial, Middle Name Thing" in Mormondom. :P

Sincerely yours,

-K. Karl Gourdin (Hey, I kinda like it!)

Perhaps his father has the same first name, as I do with my father and my grandpa and my son, so he goes by his middle name and that is how that is designated..

Share this post


Link to post

...and I feel such action is irrational.

Yes. You already said that. I guess it is just a feeling since you haven't explained why you feel that way.
a state has no interest in what goes in the bedrooms of two consenting adults, whether it be how, where and what, they use to pleasure each other (see Texas ban on certain things) nor does a state have a interest in removing the right of one group of people to marry a person of their own choosing whilst allowing another group of people to marry a person of their own choosing.
I disagree. I think the reasons given for removing that right are quite compelling. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

tradition has no bearing else, separate but equal would still be the law de jour.

This is both correct and incorrect. Tradition is directly related to what constitute our fundamental rights. It is one of the many measures that the judiciary use to figure out what rights are granted by law. On the other hand, tradition does not trump all other considerations.

the issue of in Ca. was largely if not lopsidedly pushed by religion and based on religious reasons, religion currently, by Divine design, has no place in the Law or Courts. The letter from the BYU was student was mostly correct, where were all the religious based claims when it came to defending prop 8 in court?

I disagree with almost everything here. But we can agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post

For those concerned about the 2-1 factor, it appears that Justice Reinhardt will need to recuse himself because his wife was involved in the plaintiff's case.

Share this post


Link to post
a state has no interest in what goes in the bedrooms of two consenting adults, whether it be how, where and what, they use to pleasure each other (see Texas ban on certain things)

How far do you take that "no business?" How absolute is it?

The notion of "consenting adults" as some kind of moral imperative is a very recent one, and it does not exactly have an honourable pedigree.

nor does a state have a interest in removing the right of one group of people to marry a person of their own choosing whilst allowing another group of people to marry a person of their own choosing.

I'm sorry Frankenstein, but that's a complete bill of goods, and nobody's buying it.

The law in question does not make different provisions for different groups of people. It defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. People in California, and elsewhere, are entitled by law to enter into all kinds of relationships with all kinds of people, but marriage is an opposite-sex institution; that property is intrinsic to what marriage is and always has been. For a brief period of insanity, California enacted a legal oxymoron called "same sex marriage." They might as well have enacted "silent music."

There is no "orientation test" imposed upon people applying for marriage licenses. Therefore, the claim that "one group of people" are forbidden to do something that "another group of people" are permitted to do is utterly false. Any man who wants to marry a woman, and that woman will consent to have him, is entitled to do so, whether he be "gay," straight or ambidextrous. Likewise, any woman who wants to marry a man, and that man will consent to have her, is entitled to do so, and no restrictions are imposed based upon the "sexual orientation" of either of the parties.

tradition has no bearing else, separate but equal would still be the law de jour. and forget separate but equal, where is the tradition that I as a male, had exclusive ownership of my domain, include spouse, child and bond servants?

These considerations are quite irrelevant. Such things come and go; but marriage -- the union of a man and a woman that makes the foundation of a new family -- will remain at the bedrock of society until our civilisation collapses under the unsupportable weight of the "entitlement" of its members.

the issue of in Ca. was largely if not lopsidedly pushed by religion and based on religious reasons, religion currently, by Divine design, has no place in the Law or Courts. The letter from the BYU was student was mostly correct, where were all the religious based claims when it came to defending prop 8 in court?

Exactly! Since those arguments were not made, it's really time to stop the incessant whining about religion in the public square. We believers are thoroughly cowed, and know that we have to keep our religious views to ourselves, and confine ourselves to arguments that secularists such as yourself arbitrarily declare to be acceptable.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly! Since those [religious] arguments were not made, it's really time to stop the incessant whining about religion in the public square. We believers are thoroughly cowed, and know that we have to keep our religious views to ourselves, and confine ourselves to arguments that secularists such as yourself arbitrarily declare to be acceptable.

Regards,

Pahoran

judge me all you like, just remember its your own soul at stake not mine.

who said anything about making you having to keep your views to yourself. If you live in the United States you are free as anyone to espouse your religious views. However, rightfully, and thankfully, yours, mine, john walker lindh, religious views have no real bearing in the court room and none of our religious views can used to legal justification for much, about the only thing personal religious views can be used to justify is those specific things which the Legislature has permitted a exemption based on religious or moral grounds.

If you are LDS you do realize that you are minority religion and the much of outspoken christianity considers you to be a cultist, do you really want people who think you are cultist making and passing laws based on their religious views?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...