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

Ah.. my bad... but Ramona Ripston is "(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;"

She is a director of the ACLU FOUNDATION which is a party on the brief in question.

a amicus brief, which brief has no real legal bearing on the court.

also a motion to intervene which was denied.

what is the basis or precedence that either filing (amicus brief or motion) by a spouse requires recusal of the Judge.

So once again, not a party/officer/director/trustee of a party to the proceeding

Share this post


Link to post

a amicus brief, which brief has no real legal bearing on the court.

also a motion to intervene which was denied.

what is the basis or precedence that either filing (amicus brief or motion) by a spouse requires recusal of the Judge.

So once again, not a party/officer/director/trustee of a party to the proceeding

Because all of these have to do with the "Prop. 8 appeal" the case the Judge in question is reviewing. This couple is playing both sides.

Share this post


Link to post

And you are wrong that the ACLU chapter she is with is not a lawyer in the proceeding. The fact they filed a brief, in their official capacity, makes them lawyers in the proceedings. The judges must consider the brief that was submitted as part of the case.

can you verify this claim? how does a Friend of The Court brief make one a lawyer to the proceedings? Is there precedence to make such a claim?

Share this post


Link to post

Well looky here!

Not only is Judge Reinhardt's wife an executive director of the ACLU of Southern California the boss of several Lawyers and legal council on the case. But Judge Reinhardts wife made financially contributions to the No-on-8 campaign.

One predicate fact, insufficient in itself, is that Reinhardt is the husband of Ramona Ripston, the longtime executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. I need not and do not argue here that the corporate affiliation between the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, which has filed an amicus brief on appeal, requires Reinhardt

Share this post


Link to post

Because all of these have to do with the "Prop. 8 appeal" the case the Judge in question is reviewing. This couple is playing both sides.

what do you mean by "prop 8 appeal" . Do you mean the intial Judge Walker trial which the 9th Circuit panel will review on Appeal? The ACLU Chapter the wife is part has not filed anything with the 9th Circuit.

What I have read indicates that a Amicus Brief are not bidding on the court or that the court is not required to consider the contents of the brief. Also, persons (legal definition) filing a Amicus brief can not be a party to the case at hand which also means not an attorney to the proceeding.

Share this post


Link to post

Zakuska,

More to the point... here is a whole list of Judicial recusements in the recent Oil spill lawsuits.

http://www.law.com/j...d=1202459129765

Including... A Federal Judge who recused himself because his wife provided legal advice to the platiffs.

<snip>

Judge Lance Africk recused himself because his wife's firm provides legal advice in connection with lawsuits relating to the oil spill. He did not name his wife or her firm.

<snip>

I'd say we can put to bed the fact that Judge Reinhard should indeed recuse himself because his wife did provide more than just "legal advice" for the plantiffs in the case he will be hearing. She helped spearhead the whole appeal.

frank hasn't provided any legal grounds why Judge Smith should recuse himself because he may be LDS.

Any progress frank?

Share this post


Link to post

elf, the Judge wife you refer too, her firm actively "provides legal advice in connection with lawsuits relating to the oil spill." you have shown nothing.

as for the Judge if he is LDS, it is no more a stretch to say that money and involvement by the LDS could provide that "impartiality might reasonably be questioned".

The Southern ACLU is not actively involved in providing legal advice. There is a big difference, with present involvement with advising in a case and filing a amicus brief.

please try and again and compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

I'd say we can put to bed the fact that Judge Reinhard should indeed recuse himself because his wife did provide more than just "legal advice" for the plantiffs in the case he will be hearing. She helped spearhead the whole appeal.

CFR. Please provide proof that the wife "spearheaded the whole appeal."

To put to rest some of ignorance and lack of knowledge. A lawsuit does not become and Appeal until a verdict is entered.

To further expose your ignorance of the issue at hand, the plantiffs in Perry v. Schawznager have their own Attorneys, ACLU of Southern California attorneys did not speak during the trial. ACLU of Southern Ca. attorneys spoke a very specific hearing, said attorneys were denied the request of their hearing.

To further expose your ignorance the ACLU of Southern Ca. filed a Amicus Brief, this means ACLU of Southern Ca. is not and can not be a party to the proceeding.

To further expose your ignorance of the issue. The ACLU of Southern Ca. has not filed a Brief with the 9th Circuit Court.

To further expose your ignorance of the issue, the Judge Reinhardt has a history of recusing when his wife is a party to the case, however, his wife is not a part to the case in any manner.

So please explain where "spearheaded" occurred.

Share this post


Link to post

Frankenstein,

you, um, "misunderstood" me as saying:

In order for people to believe that [mormons are cultists], they'd have to believe a huge and glaring lie.

That you may have no further cause for "misunderstanding," please be advised that I actually said:

In order for people to believe that [the Church is making and passing laws based on their religious views], they'd have to believe a huge and glaring lie.

Is that clear now?

I notice you've silently slunk away from your "Golden Rule" thread.

Snapped much?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

CFR. Please provide proof that the wife "spearheaded the whole appeal."

Zak already provided the link...

Even though it may well provide a sufficient basis on its own, I also do not rely on the fact that Ripston publicly celebrated Judge Vaughn Walker

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting. Here we have one judge whose wife opposes Prop 8, and one judge whose God supports Prop 8.

Before we do anything hasty, we should find out what Judge Reinhardt's God thinks about Prop 8, and what Judge Smith's wife thinks about Prop 8.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting. Here we have one judge whose wife opposes Prop 8, and one judge whose God supports Prop 8.

Before we do anything hasty, we should find out what Judge Reinhardt's God thinks about Prop 8, and what Judge Smith's wife thinks about Prop 8.

Makes you kind of wonder about that "Random" judge appointment process huh?

Divine intervention anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting. Here we have one judge whose wife opposes Prop 8, and one judge whose God supports Prop 8.

Before we do anything hasty, we should find out what Judge Reinhardt's God thinks about Prop 8, and what Judge Smith's wife thinks about Prop 8.

Ah. Humour.

Well, in the same vein: maybe we should find out what the customers of Jaybear's Videos think about Prop 8.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

Ah. Humour.

Well, in the same vein: maybe we should find out what the customers of Jaybear's Videos think about Prop 8.

Regards,

Pahoran

Your gratuitous personal insult aside, the fact is all judges/humans are biased, and any trial attorney will tell you the selection of judge is a critical stage of the process in any case.

If I were an attorney advocating for Prop 8, I would prefer a mormon judge to a gay judge or one whose wife is an ACLU attorney. If I were advocating against Prop 8 I would prefer exactly the opposite.

In this case, I suspect the selection is irrellevant, as I would expect the losing party to ask and get reconsideration before the entire panel, before that ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court, where the decision of 8 of the Justices is readily predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Pahoran, on 30 November 2010 - 08:34 PM, said:In order for people to believe that [the Church is making and passing laws based on their religious views], they'd have to believe a huge and glaring lie.

Is that clear now?

Regards,

Pahoran

that is clear. I must not have been clear myself.

I never suggested the LDS Church is making and passing laws. I only pointed out that religion has no real place in the courtroom or law. I also was trying to illustrate that LDS being a minority religion and regarded as cultist by a very vocal and influential part of christian; that LDS should be greatful that religion and the making, passing, and enforcement of laws do not mix.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

elf, you have shown how the wife of the ACLU "spearheaded the whole appeal". The ACLU did not even "spearhead" the trial over which Judge Walker presided. So you still have a CFR outstanding or you can change you comment.

The gave was involved in a meeting, before the case was even filed. And all we know is that the ACLU did not want the case filed. Many people opposed to Prop 8 did not want the case filed, those people suggested waiting 5 years or so.

So where is the "spearhead[ing]"

and as I told Zak, I read all the articles concerning this issue on the national review, those articles make claims but provide no basis for claims. ed whelan only makes claims, ed whelan does not show precedence or case law that demonstrate the judge should recuse. ed whelan's claim is hinged upon "impartiality might reasonably be questioned", ed whelan is not reasonable, read his writing, anyone who titles writings "Liberal Judicial Activism of the Day", and said title is a regular occurance for ed, is not exactly a reasonably person.

Share this post


Link to post

elf, you have shown how the wife of the ACLU "spearheaded the whole appeal". The ACLU did not even "spearhead" the trial over which Judge Walker presided. So you still have a CFR outstanding or you can change you comment.

The gave was involved in a meeting, before the case was even filed. And all we know is that the ACLU did not want the case filed. Many people opposed to Prop 8 did not want the case filed, those people suggested waiting 5 years or so.

CFR on the ACLU NOT wanting to File.

The executive director of the ACLU seemed pretty Gun-hoe about filling to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like "spearheading" to me.

I would characterize the ACLU's role as cheerleading. Most certainly not spearheading.

Olson and Boies "spearheaded" the underlying case, and the defense of the ruling on appeal.

If you feel the need to exaggerate the key facts, you really should reevaluate your underlying claim.

Share this post


Link to post

I would characterize the ACLU's role as cheerleading. Most certainly not spearheading.

Olson and Boies "spearheaded" the underlying case, and the defense of the ruling on appeal.

If you feel the need to exaggerate the key facts, you really should reevaluate your underlying claim.

Chearleaders don't usually go out on the field and assist the Coach in calling plays.

"Assistant Coach" would be a more apt analogy of the ACLU's role.

Share this post


Link to post

CFR on the ACLU NOT wanting to File.

you got me on that one, i read ed whelan't tripe wrong. So I retract that the ACLU of Southern California did not want the case filed. As it stands we do not know the substance of the meeting, and we do not know what the ACLU of Southern Ca. said.

The executive director of the ACLU seemed pretty Gun-hoe about filling to me.

please keep your issue together. The quote you provide does not support the claim that the wife was "gun-hoe" about the case. The quote is a post verdict statement. As I said, legal types who opposed prop 8 also did not want Perry et al to file the case. The legal types opposed to prop 8 thought Perry et all should wait a few years. Those same people probably were very happy with the verdict.

here is an example:

You and I are standing on a cliff, which has a overhanging rope swing, the water below is a very nice 85 degrees it and crystal clear. you say, "I am going to swing off the rope, do a double back flip and land in the water". I say "No, you shouldn't it might not be safe" I also point out several dangers in you attempting the stunt. You evaluate said dangers and proceed. You complete the stunt without any harm. I celebrate your success with you.

Does my celebration of your success mean I was "gun-hoe" about you doing the stunt?

Also the Lawyer who did file had this to say... " In the end, Boutrous says, he felt even more strongly that filing was the right thing to do."

firstly provide the context or the full description. here is what you should have posted, lest fast and loose be the facts:

After Boutrous listened to their views, he says, he

Share this post


Link to post

You and I are standing on a cliff, which has a overhanging rope swing, the water below is a very nice 85 degrees it and crystal clear. you say, "I am going to swing off the rope, do a double back flip and land in the water". I say "No, you shouldn't it might not be safe" I also point out several dangers in you attempting the stunt. You evaluate said dangers and proceed. You complete the stunt without any harm. I celebrate your success with you.

Does my celebration of your success mean I was "gun-hoe" about you doing the stunt?

What if I performed the stunt with you?

She also contributed to No-on-8 after all. Not only is she providing legal advice. She's financially invested.

Share this post


Link to post

She also contributed to No-on-8 after all. Not only is she providing legal advice. She's financially invested.

so she contribute, with what most likely was her own money.

if Judge Smith is married and his wife contributed should he recuse?

she was involved in discussions before the case was filed. that is not spearheading. her group filed a brief (which the court requested generally) with the court - this brief means her group was not a party to the case, this brief means only they provided another point of view on the subject.

her group also filed a motion which was denied.

that does not constitute spearheading and it is not reasonable to impute her groups actions to her husband.

Share this post


Link to post

More buzz...

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE CALLS FOR JUDGE REINHARDT TO DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM PROP 8 HEARING

Wife's Involvement In Case Violates Judicial Code of Conduct Forbidding Bias and Appearance of Bias

Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post

so she contribute, with what most likely was her own money.

if Judge Smith is married and his wife contributed should he recuse?

she was involved in discussions before the case was filed. that is not spearheading. her group filed a brief (which the court requested generally) with the court - this brief means her group was not a party to the case, this brief means only they provided another point of view on the subject.

her group also filed a motion which was denied.

that does not constitute spearheading and it is not reasonable to impute her groups actions to her husband.

Judge Rienhardt has a policy of recusing himself from cases which involve his Wifes organization, ACLU of Southern California. Is now the time to break the mold?

UPDATE: I originally said that Judge Reinhardt recuses himself from ACLU cases; his policy actually appears to be that he recuses himself from cases involving the ACLU of Southern California, so I corrected the post accordingly.

http://volokh.com/20...udge-reinhardt/

Share this post


Link to post

Judge Rienhardt has a policy of recusing himself from cases which involve his Wifes organization. Is now the time to break the mold?

facts fast and loose.

The Judge has a policy or practice of recusing himself when his wife organization is a party to the case/proceeding. the ACLU of Southern Ca. is not a party to the case.

try evaluating the what you read before using someone else postings.

based on the things you quote

IF, Judge smith wife contributed to the prop 8 campaign he should recuse.

it is very telling how conveniently you cut and paste:

It

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...