BYU grad one of three judges in Prop 8 trial

[Pahoran]

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?

In order for people to believe that, they'd have to believe a huge and glaring lie.

The Church did not "make" the law in question; the Church did not "pass" the law in question.

The people of California made and passed Proposition 8.

Therefore anyone who accuses the Church of "making and passing" said law is an utterly shameless liar.

You're welcome.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Libs]

In order for people to believe that, they'd have to believe a huge and glaring lie.

The Church did not "make" the law in question; the Church did not "pass" the law in question.

The people of California made and passed Proposition 8.

Therefore anyone who accuses the Church of "making and passing" said law is an utterly shameless liar.

You're welcome.

Regards,

Pahoran

Making the law, no. Helping to pass it (in a rather big way) absolutely, yes.

[frankenstein]

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

and people do believe it, I have been told by many people that I am cultist for being a Member of the LDS Church. So again, is it really a bad thing that religion is kept out of the law and courtroom? Is it really a bad thing that there is no national religion or state religion in the United States?

my point is that when it came to legal battle the religious reason were dropped or reworked to appear secular. Why, because, rightfully so in the United States, religion can not be the basis for a law.

[frankenstein]

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.

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires that a judge [Reinhardt]

[Zeta-Flux]

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires that a judge [Reinhardt]

[frankenstein]

Um...no. One's religion does not make one's impartiality questionable. However, having one's spouse working with one side of the case is listed under examples of such reasons to disqualify one's self.

lest, facts begin to be fast and loose.

is the Southern California ACLU a party to the case or is the Southern California ACLU lawyers in the case? Does filing of a Amicus brief by the Southern California ACLU disqualify the Judge?

As for ones religion.

[Zakuska]

that is a pretty open statement. And considering the involvement of LDS people and the LDS Church, is not entirely unreasonable to question the Judge Smith, if Judge Smith is LDS.

"Guilt by association" huh? Is that really a reason to question him?

If it could be demonstrated that Judge Smith himself contributed to the Yes-on-8 or No-on-8 campaigns then yes it would be reasonable to question him and for him to recuse himself, just being LDS is not.

[smordecai]

Marriage laws date back to at least the Code of Hammurabi ca 1700BCE. They are designed to protect our daughters and grandchildren. So, which of the partners in a gay "marriage" requires the protection of the State?

[frankenstein]

Marriage laws date back to at least the Code of Hammurabi ca 1700BCE. They are designed to protect our daughters and grandchildren. So, which of the partners in a gay "marriage" requires the protection of the State?

how did marriage laws protect the woman in a marriage when the law permitted a man to rape his wife?

The laws of the land no longer make a woman the property of her husband.

that does not seem like protection.

[Zeta-Flux]

lest, facts begin to be fast and loose.

is the Southern California ACLU a party to the case or is the Southern California ACLU lawyers in the case? Does filing of a Amicus brief by the Southern California ACLU disqualify the Judge?

Quoting from: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos "The California Lawyer article presents Rosenbaum as the ACLU lawyer whom plaintiffs

[Zeta-Flux]

how did marriage laws protect the woman in a marriage when the law permitted a man to rape his wife?

The laws of the land no longer make a woman the property of her husband.

that does not seem like protection.

Don't cloud the issue with aspects of marriage that are not universal. See the briefs I linked to earlier if you want a fuller investigation into coverture.

[frankenstein]

Quoting from: http://www.nationalr...com/bench-memos "The California Lawyer article presents Rosenbaum as the ACLU lawyer whom plaintiffs

[Zeta-Flux]

facts fast and loose.

Is filing a motion to intervene (it seems said motion was denied) grounds for recusal?

Is filing a Amicus Brief grounds for recusal?

What section or subsection of the Title 28 requires recusal considering the filing mentioned above?

When it your wife motioning to intervene, and filing the amicus brief, then yes those are grounds for recusal.

Just to let you know, I'll leave it to others to answer your questions from this point on. I don't feel a connection when discussing this issue with you--and that's a central reason why I participate on discussion boards. All the best to you.

[frankenstein]

Don't cloud the issue with aspects of marriage that are not universal. See the briefs I linked to earlier if you want a fuller investigation into coverture.

raping of ones wife was a permitted in England and adopted by the United States. The history of marriage in the United States and from its mother land is not a history of protecting the woman in the marriage.

[frankenstein]

When it your wife motioning to intervene, and filing the amicus brief, then yes those are grounds for recusal.

even if you keep repeating it, you nor anyone else has provided substantive explaination. Nor has there been a presentment of precedence which dictates recusal for such filings.

The ACLU chapter that the wife is part does not have "financial interest" (as defined by Title 28) in the outcome.

The ACLU chapter the wife is part of does not have attorneys in the case.

So what is the basis for recusal. If it the "reasonable" aspect of Title 28 then a LDS Judge should recuse as well.

Just to let you know, I'll leave it to others to answer your questions if they see fit. I don't feel a connection when discussing this issue with you--and that's a central reason why I participate on discussion boards. All the best to you.

that is pretty lame.

You either thoughtful response or you don't.

All that you have posted is just someone else playing fast and loose with facts.

[Zakuska]

So what is the basis for recusal. If it the "reasonable" aspect of Title 28 then a LDS Judge should recuse as well.

How about this?

Canon 3.C of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a judge must disqualify himself on the ground that his

[Zeta-Flux]

even if you keep repeating it, you nor anyone else has provided substantive explaination. Nor has there been a presentment of precedence which dictates recusal for such filings.

The ACLU chapter that the wife is part does not have "financial interest" (as defined by Title 28) in the outcome.

The ACLU chapter the wife is part of does not have attorneys in the case.

So what is the basis for recusal. If it the "reasonable" aspect of Title 28 then a LDS Judge should recuse as well.

that is pretty lame.

You either thoughtful response or you don't.

All that you have posted is just someone else playing fast and loose with facts.

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric I was talking about.

But as you called for a reference (which you seemed to have missed in the link, or when reading Title 28) here it is:

TITLE 28 -JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART I--ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

CHAPTER 21--GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND JUDGES

Sec. 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

OR

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

[Zeta-Flux]

There IS something specifically in the Law for Judge Reinhardt to recuse himself. Can you show anything in the law that makes a Religious test for impartiality and thus grounds for Judge Smith to recuse himself?

I'm seriously questioning why I'm bothering. What do you think. Is it worth the time and effort?

[frankenstein]

Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii). The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. However, if

[frankenstein]

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric I was talking about.

But as you called for a reference (which you seemed to have missed in the link, or when reading Title 28) here it is:

TITLE 28 -JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART I--ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

CHAPTER 21--GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND JUDGES

Sec. 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

OR

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

The ACLU chapter the wife is with is not a party to the proceeding.

The ACLU chapter the wife is with is not a lawyer in the proceeding.

The ACLU chapter she is with has no financial interest, as defined by TItle 28.

also see the commentary Cannon3 I posted above.

[Zeta-Flux]

no one has explained why it is reasonable to question the Judge impartiality because of the wife involvement with ACLU. Has the Judge come out in support of his wifes involvement in the case?

It isn't her involvement with the ACLU, per se. It is the direct involvement of the ACLU *in the case at hand*. It doesn't matter if the judge publicly states he supports his wife; the mere fact of her involvement is sufficient to throw reasonable doubt upon his ability to be impartial. The fact that you cannot understand this quite simple fact, which is spelled out explicitly in the code, says to me that you are not impartial.

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.

At any rate, I really am done now. You've convinced me it is fruitless to argue with you. But I do wish you the best.

[Zakuska]

I'm seriously questioning why I'm bothering. What do you think. Is it worth the time and effort?

Me too.

If what frankie says is true... ie.

The ACLU chapter the wife is with is not a party to the proceeding.

The ACLU chapter the wife is with is not a lawyer in the proceeding.

The ACLU chapter she is with has no financial interest, as defined by Title 28.

Then why in the world is she the executive directory of the party filing the brief?

Additional Counsel:

MARK ROSENBAUM (SBN 59940)

mrosenbaum@aclu-sc.org

LORI RIFKIN (SBN 244081)

lrifkin@aclu-sc.org

ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

1313 W. 8th Street

Los Angeles, CA 90017

T: (213) 977-9500/ F: (213) 250-3919

http://docs.justia.c...2292/215270/62/

[Zeta-Flux]

Me too.

If what frankie says is true... ie.

Then why in the world is she listed as additional council on the very brief in question?

http://docs.justia.c...2292/215270/62/

Zakuska, his wife is not that person. Her name is Ramona Ripston. Regardless, she is a party to the proceedings.

But what bothers me is that Frankenstein doesn't understand that if one's family member is involved in a case then that is sufficient grounds to question partiality, yet he thinks he understands what it means to be impartial. That is a much bigger issue than the exact meaning of the code.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska, his wife is not that person. Her name is Ramona Ripston. Regardless, she is a party to the proceedings.

But what bothers me is that Frankenstein doesn't understand that if one's family member is involved in a case then that is sufficient grounds to question partiality, yet he thinks he understands what it means to be impartial. That is a much bigger issue than the exact meaning of the code.

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

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

According to its annual report, Ripston is also executive director of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. (See her signature line on page 2 of the report, which identifies her as

[Zeta-Flux]

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 party on the brief.

Yup. Not only that, she apparently played a consulting role for plaintiff's counsel.