Judge Walker

[bluebell]

Ah, Jaybear. I suppose that the blogger at http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/28/6094/ is merely "displaying [his] own personal bias."

Great article.

[Zeta-Flux]

Great article.

I thought it quite to the point. I also enjoyed one of the comments, which points out that in Judge Walker's own ruling he explicitly says that those in same-sex relationships *suffer* from the ban. In other words, Judge Walker, being in such a personal relationship, explicitly states that he is personally affected and suffers from Prop. 8.

[Analytics]

Ah, Jaybear. I suppose that the blogger at http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/28/6094/ is merely "displaying [his] own personal bias."

Interesting article. It says, "almost all of [the] distinguished ethicists—people whom I read, respect, and frequently quote", argue "that Judge Vaughn Walker’s decade-long same-sex relationship didn’t need to be disclosed before he ruled against Proposition 8."

When almost all of the distinguished ethicists are in agreement about something, I'd tend to take their side.

But still, your side gets a point for finding a legal expert who thinks Walker should have recused himself. But your side loses two because even though he thinks Walker should have recused himself, he "really, really" likes Walker's decision.

[bluebell]

But still, your side gets a point for finding a legal expert who thinks Walker should have recused himself. But your side loses two because even though he thinks Walker should have recused himself, he "really, really" likes Walker's decision.

Actually, i think the fact that the author 'really really likes walker's decision' and yet still thought it was reasonable to wonder about his objectivity shows that zetu-flux won the match. Jaybear claimed, rather authoritatively, that only those who were biased against Walker's decision would think he should have recused himself. Zetu-fluxed proved that jaybear's biases were showing.

[Analytics]

Actually, i think the fact that the author 'really really likes walker's decision' and yet still thought it was reasonable to wonder about his objectivity shows that zetu-flux won the match. Jaybear claimed, rather authoritatively, that only those who were biased against Walker's decision would think he should have recused himself. Zetu-fluxed proved that jaybear's biases were showing.

That is a fair point—all distinguished ethicists don’t agree with jaybear on this point, only nearly all as the author in the article states. And yes, the fact that this expert agrees with Walker’s ruling shows that he is unbiased.

That’s quite the gambit—in order to win a pawn on the “should have Walker recused himself?” question, you sacrifice a knight by conceding that an unbiased legal expert agrees with Walker’s ruling.

[bluebell]

That is a fair point—all distinguished ethicists don’t agree with jaybear on this point, only nearly all as the author in the article states. And yes, the fact that this expert agrees with Walker’s ruling shows that he is unbiased.

That’s quite the gambit—in order to win a pawn on the “should have Walker recused himself?” question, you sacrifice a knight by conceding that an unbiased legal expert agrees with Walker’s ruling.

I think you might be making more of this than it's meant to be.

If you want to declare victory though, go for it. I'm sure it'll mean something, somewhere.

[Analytics]

I think you might be making more of this than it's meant to be.

If you want to declare victory though, go for it. I'm sure it'll mean something, somewhere.

Victory!

[Daniel2]

Darin,

I read the article, but didn't find it persuasive myself. So let me ask two simple follow-up questions.

If in fact Judge Walker did, during the trial, want to eventually marry his long-term partner, would that be grounds for vacating his decision and retrying the case?

If a women judge was sitting on a case concerning the constitutionality of abortion laws in her state, and she was pregnant at the time and considering an abortion, would that necessitate her recusing herself? What if she was not considering an abortion, finding such a thought disgusting--would her situation (thinking of abortion in terms of her unborn child) give the other side grounds for requesting her recusal?

The article's premise seemed to be that one shouldn't prevent a judge from sitting on a case which he might eventually care about (e.g. a women who may one day want to get an abortion); but I think that misunderstands the fact that there was a *present* reason for supposing Judge Walker was biased. Those reasons are spelled out in Judge Walker's very decision, explaining the benefits of marriage as extended to same-sex couples (in his *own* *present* view).

Zeta,

There's one HUGE, glaringly obvious problem with your mis-judgement that there was "a *present* reason for supposing Judge Walker was biased," presuming that he "eventually did, during the trial, want to marry his long-term partner"--and it's this:

Judge Walker had been with his boyfriend for 10+ years.

Ten plus years. That means Judge Walker and his boyfriend have been together at least since 2001.

Same-sex civil marriage was legal in California, beginning June 16, 2008, and continued for six months, until Prop 8 was passed--that means same-sex marriage was legalized at least SEVEN YEARS into Judge Walker's 10+ year relationship.

If one is going to jump to the conclusion that Judge Walker may have personally wanted to get married to his long-term partner, it makes FAR more sense to presume that he would have done so, when it was actually legal.

Clearly, Judge Walker and his boyfriend decided NOT to marry each other, when it was legal.

There's no evidence to suggest that the trial he presided over was due to a personal interest, on his part.

Regardless... As I've said, there's no way Judge Walker's ruling (which I believe is pretty air-tight) will stand without first being scrutinized by a whole slew of appellate judges (including, likely, the Federal Supreme Court). As such, I don't think anyone should worry that his one-man ruling will standing until a whole bunch of other judges have their say, too.

Darin

[Zeta-Flux]

Zeta,

There's one HUGE, glaringly obvious problem with your mis-judgement that there was "a *present* reason for supposing Judge Walker was biased," presuming that he "eventually did, during the trial, want to marry his long-term partner"--and it's this:

Judge Walker had been with his boyfriend for 10+ years.

Ten plus years. That means Judge Walker and his boyfriend have been together at least since 2001.

Same-sex civil marriage was legal in California, beginning June 16, 2008, and continued for six months, until Prop 8 was passed--that means same-sex marriage was legalized at least SEVEN YEARS into Judge Walker's 10+ year relationship.

If one is going to jump to the conclusion that Judge Walker may have personally wanted to get married to his long-term partner, it makes FAR more sense to presume that he would have done so, when it was actually legal.

Clearly, Judge Walker and his boyfriend decided NOT to marry each other, when it was legal.

There's no evidence to suggest that the trial he presided over was due to a personal interest, on his part.

Regardless... As I've said, there's no way Judge Walker's ruling (which I believe is pretty air-tight) will stand without first being scrutinized by a whole slew of appellate judges (including, likely, the Federal Supreme Court). As such, I don't think anyone should worry that his one-man ruling will standing until a whole bunch of other judges have their say, too.

Darin

I'm trying to understand your reasoning here.

I think it is safe to say that it is reasonable assume that his relationship was similar to those of the other same-sex long-term partnerships in the state of California. So, for your argument to hold water you would need to demonstrate that (a) people who wanted to get married, and who were in similar circumstances, did not wait to see the outcome of Proposition 8 before getting married, (b) a large majority of those who waited do not now want to be married, and © those in such relationships do not feel a personal stake in having available the *option* to marry their long-term partner.

From what I've seen there are a large number of couples who didn't get married during that 6 month window for a number of purposes, but now want to get married. (In fact, I'd wager that more of the long-term couples want to be married now than were married then.) I think that might even be the case for the couple who brought the suit! Furthermore, if we take Judge Walker's own ruling as reflective of his feelings about Proposition 8's affect on same-sex couples, it is quite clear he had a personal stake.

Personally, I don't think the appellate court will give much credence to his ruling, even if it isn't vacated. They didn't seem to give it much stock at the hearing they already had. I just hope it is vacated because other courts are giving it undue weight.

[cdowis]

Same-sex civil marriage was legal in California, beginning June 16, 2008, and continued for six months, until Prop 8 was passed--that means same-sex marriage was legalized at least SEVEN YEARS into Judge Walker's 10+ year relationship.

If one is going to jump to the conclusion that Judge Walker may have personally wanted to get married to his long-term partner, it makes FAR more sense to presume that he would have done so, when it was actually legal.

It is reasonable to suppose that he did not want to enter into a same sex marriage while a sitting judge. After all, he did not make this relationship public for 10+ years.

He wanted to wait until after he retired from the bench to publically reveal the relationship. We note with interest his retirement shortly after the decision, and he certainly knew that it was imminent.

He clearly had a personal interest in the outcome of this trial, and did not reveal this relationship until ***after*** he had made his decision.

[bluebell]

Victory!

A victory where nothing is gained and which no one takes seriously is still victory to some i suppose. Take it where you can get it.