Lds Ched De Mission Steps Down....

[Jeff K.]

Jaybear, on 12 May 2011 - 11:28 AM, said:

Gays had the right to legally marry prior to the passage of Prop 8. I understand some 15,000 gay couples were married in California, before voters took away that right, thanks in part to the efforts of people like Mr. Vidmar.

And the judge that made the decision to overturn a law used the fact it wasn't in the Constitution to create a right that did not exist. Proposition 8 rectified that error. The right to call a domestic partnership a marriage does not exist nor should it be created.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 11 May 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:

The nationalist socialist party agrees with you, that is how it started in the 1930's.

I support gay rights, and free speech. So of course that makes me a NAZI.

If not their ideology, you certainly support similar tactics. I guess its part of your issue with situational ethics.

[Jeff K.]

William Schryver, on 12 May 2011 - 09:53 PM, said:

+1

That's "all"? Yes, kudus to Pahoran for understating the importance of the issue to both sides.

Why should gays be offended. He only fought to take away their right to marry. That's all.

Its amazing how jaybear thinks a judge can create rights simply with a wave of his gavel. The people spoke, Jaybear just doesn't want to adhere to it. I guess the constitution doesn't mean much too him unless it supports his own views.

[Jaybear]

False.

All judges knew it was going up for appeal, and we know that the common practice is for such issues. To suspend judgement until a higher court (one you obfuscated about and implied did not exist) awaited cert. The federal appeals court is higher than the California Supreme Court and can overturn it's decision. Everyone knows that, that is why it goes up for appeal.

The judge knew by not suspending the decision until it was appealed he would in effect be opening a floodgate of potentially false marriages. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

Disengenuous arguments do your position no good because everyone sees through them. The 15K marriages would not have been an issue if the politically driven judge had followed a normal course of events.

One last time:

I was talking about ... The CA Supreme Court ruling which led to 15,00 gay marriages.

That ruling interpreted CA Constitution, and could not be set aside or reversed by the federal courts.

That ruling was not, and could not have been the subject of an appeal.

Prop 8 amended the CA constitution. Judge Walker ruled that Prop 8 violated the US Constitution. That ruling was stayed pending appeal. No gay couples have been permitted to marry because of Judge Walker's ruling.

Notice how I clearly and cogently explained why you were wrong, without calling you a nazi, or accused you of being disingenuous. Try it some time.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You have got to love uncompromising men. The Olympics have becomes purely political. Here in Cobb County Georgia, at the 1996 games (I believe it was 1996). We “Cobb County” lost the volleyball event because we took a pro-family stance similar to the Church.

[Walden]

At least give him credit for being consistent. In the thread on BOM play, when I said that I did not think the world would be a better place if people did not make fun of others' sacred beliefs, he said:

I support gay rights, and free speech. So of course that makes me a NAZI.

Yes, it appears that anyone who disagrees with Jeff K must be a Nazi sympathizer....priceless.

[Whiskeypete]

I thought it was ridiculous when Prop 8 supporters demanded that the Judge ruling on the constitutionality of the amendment step down because he was gay. If a judge who is a homosexual might have been unduly impartial due to his sexual orientation, by the same token, a heterosexual judge may also have been unduly impartial due to his sexual orientation. The only judge who could be qualified under those rules was one who was neither gay, nor straight, nor married, nor single.

Vidmar supported a ballot amendment that was approved by a majority of the California voters. Obviously there is not a consensus view that Vidmar was wrong in his beliefs. But if he couldn't serve in that capacity due to his support of Prop 8, we need to make sure that whoever replaces him also neither supported nor opposed Prop 8.

It's the same situation as the judge above.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 12 May 2011 - 01:52 PM, said:

It is common practice to suspend the ruling while it is certified in a higher court,. I suggest you cease the obfuscation, you are only embarrassing yourself.

What are you talking about?

There is no higher court than the CA Supreme Court, when interpreting the CA Constitution. It was the decision of that Court that led to the 15,000 gay couples who were married, before the decision became moot by the Prop 8 amendment.

Interesting strategy. Rather than admit you are wrong and apologize, you make an inane statement, then claim victory. Strangely, I think it works for you.

A federal appeals court rejected a plea by gay and lesbian couples Wednesday to let same-sex weddings resume in California while the court reviews a 2008 ballot measure that banned such marriages, a process that could take at least one more year.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reaffirmed an order it issued in August, suspending Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional

SFGATE

As I have stated, a common practice.

With your activist nature, and the arguments you have promulgated regarding prop 8, it is impossible to believe you aren't aware of the issues, and more to the fact, impossible to believe you aren't being disengenuous in your argument since these issues have been discussed before and you ahve been in the thick of it.

Interesting strategy. Rather than admit you are wrong and apologize, you make an inane statement, then claim victory. Strangely, I think it works for you.

Apparently you aren't one for taking your own advice.

All judges knew it was going up for appeal, and we know that the common practice is for such issues. To suspend judgement until a higher court (one you obfuscated about and implied did not exist) awaited cert. The federal appeals court is higher than the California Supreme Court and can overturn it's decision. Everyone knows that, that is why it goes up for appeal.

The judge knew by not suspending the decision until it was appealed he would in effect be opening a floodgate of potentially false marriages. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

Disengenuous arguments do your position no good because everyone sees through them. The 15K marriages would not have been an issue if the politically driven judge had followed a normal course of events.

One last time:

I was talking about ... The CA Supreme Court ruling which led to 15,00 gay marriages.

That ruling interpreted CA Constitution, and could not be set aside or reversed by the federal courts.

That ruling was not, and could not have been the subject of an appeal.

Prop 8 amended the CA constitution. Judge Walker ruled that Prop 8 violated the US Constitution. That ruling was stayed pending appeal. No gay couples have been permitted to marry because of Judge Walker's ruling.

Notice how I clearly and cogently explained why you were wrong, without calling you a nazi, or accused you of being disingenuous. Try it some time.

I haven't seen '"duck and cover" since the Cold War years.

[USU78]

Curious that some folks cannot seem to be able to distinguish between Nazi political philosophy and specific aims on the one hand and Nazi political methods on the other.

I myself thought the distinction was pretty easy to make.

[Jeff K.]

I thought it was ridiculous when Prop 8 supporters demanded that the Judge ruling on the constitutionality of the amendment step down because he was gay. If a judge who is a homosexual might have been unduly impartial due to his sexual orientation, by the same token, a heterosexual judge may also have been unduly impartial due to his sexual orientation. The only judge who could be qualified under those rules was one who was neither gay, nor straight, nor married, nor single.

Vidmar supported a ballot amendment that was approved by a majority of the California voters. Obviously there is not a consensus view that Vidmar was wrong in his beliefs. But if he couldn't serve in that capacity due to his support of Prop 8, we need to make sure that whoever replaces him also neither supported nor opposed Prop 8.

It's the same situation as the judge above.

An interesting conundrum or can of worms. When you cannot allow someone who is competent to do their job because of their belief that the definition of marriage should not be changed, you open up a political game in which no one may openly support anything for fear of offending one or more aggrieved parties.

I find people who support such a view distasteful in the worst way given how quickly some people take on the lynch mob mentality of punishing anyone who disagrees with them. The equivalent of balkanization while stifling the livlihood of those who feel different about an issue.

[USU78]

f [Widmar] couldn't serve in that capacity due to his support of Prop 8, we need to make sure that whoever replaces him also neither supported nor opposed Prop 8.

Somebody pinch me.

There is actually somebody who thinks it's even remotely possible that someone could lose a gig because he was an opponent of Prop 8?

[Whiskeypete]

The only judge who could be qualified under those rules was one who was neither gay, nor straight, nor married, nor single.

And unfortunately Michael Jackson had already passed away at the time of the appeal. I'm not sure who else would qualify under those rules.

[Kenngo1969]

And unfortunately Michael Jackson had already passed away at the time of the appeal. I'm not sure who else would qualify under those rules.

The Gloved One went to law school? Whodathunk?!

[USU78]

And unfortunately Michael Jackson had already passed away at the time of the appeal. I'm not sure who else would qualify under those rules.

[TAO]

Whiskeypete, the problem wasn't that he considered himself 'gay'. The problem was he didn't disclose the information to the lawyers when he had the chance to. Sometimes that's called obstruction of justice - because he prevented them from even making a case on the issue. He has a responsibility to let the lawyers know, but he did not.

Somber Wishes,

TAO =/.

[frankenstein]

Whiskeypete, the problem wasn't that he considered himself 'gay'. The problem was he didn't disclose the information to the lawyers when he had the chance to. Sometimes that's called obstruction of justice - because he prevented them from even making a case on the issue. He has a responsibility to let the lawyers know, but he did not.

Somber Wishes,

TAO =/.

Tao, it has been discussed elsewhere that the lawyer had a responsibility as well. The propopent of prop 8 also admit that they had a duty.

[krose]

Sometimes that's called obstruction of justice - because he prevented them from even making a case on the issue.

You're going to have to explain that one for me. What is the "issue" about which these lawyers were prevented from "making a case"? The judge's personal sexual practices?

He has a responsibility to let the lawyers know, but he did not.

Please elucidate. What is the established precedent that requires a judge to disclose his own personal sexual proclivities and practices to the parties in a civil rights case?

[TAO]

You're going to have to explain that one for me. What is the "issue" about which these lawyers were prevented from "making a case"? The judge's personal sexual practices?

Correct, the lawyers were not allowed to make an appeal based on this instance. Even if it would have failed, the judge obstructed the lawyers from having the capability to do this.

Please elucidate. What is the established precedent that requires a judge to disclose his own personal sexual proclivities and practices to the parties in a civil rights case?

It's the same process that goes on with jury members. You have to disclose information, and then the lawyers can choose to dismiss you based on things they don't like. In this case, they wouldn't be able to 'just dismiss', but they would be able to file a law suit - even if it failed.

Worried Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

Tao, it has been discussed elsewhere that the lawyer had a responsibility as well. The propopent of prop 8 also admit that they had a duty.

True, it has been. But it was also established in that thread that rumors do not provide a good enough basis for doubt. That is why the judge had a responsibility for establishing that he was in such a relationship. He didn't disclose that, and so, the case has to proceed to a higher court. =/

Best Wishes,

TAO

[krose]

It's the same process that goes on with jury members. You have to disclose information, and then the lawyers can choose to dismiss you based on things they don't like. In this case, they wouldn't be able to 'just dismiss', but they would be able to file a law suit - even if it failed.

Are you saying that jurors are routinely asked about their sex habits, and that they may be dismissed for cause depending on their answers?

I don't believe you.

[frankenstein]

True, it has been. But it was also established in that thread that rumors do not provide a good enough basis for doubt.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Tao, you are incorrect. rumor is not a sufficient basis for recusal. Recusal is completely different issue than a lawyer asking the judge if the judge has a conflict.

[TAO]

Are you saying that jurors are routinely asked about their sex habits, and that they may be dismissed for cause depending on their answers?

I don't believe you.

Jurors may be dismissed for any reason the lawyers view as necessary. They don't even have to give a reason. This happens before the court case begins.

Have you not got called for jury duty before...? If you haven't... well... the lawyers go through and ask you a bunch of questions. Then if they don't like you, they dismiss you and call new jurors. If they do like you, you sit for the court case.

[TAO]

Tao, you are incorrect. rumor is not a sufficient basis for recusal. Recusal is completely different issue than a lawyer asking the judge if the judge has a conflict.

No, that is precisely what I was saying, you stated what I was saying.

I said that the rumors of his sexuality were not enough to allow the lawyers to question the judge. But because this would be something, that if heard, the lawyers would naturally question, and proceed to appeals on, the judge did not do the right thing when he did not admit such.

With jurors, it doesn't matter if you think that you can be a good juror, it matters that the lawyers think you can. I'm pretty sure it's the same way with judges. Not 100% sure though.

[frankenstein]

ok, you first said "But it was also established in that thread that rumors do not provide a good enough basis for doubt." But the other thread nor the proponents established this, they did not establish that they could not question a lawyer based on a rumor, just think about just about any information a lawyer could get would be rumor until the judge confirms or denies. The other thread only should that rumor is not a sufficient basis for recusal. The other thread did not establish that lawyers could not question based on rumor. A case posted in that thread was about a lawyer saying "Well X Judge worked for Y person who is now the defendant 60years ago, so the Judge is biased" That lawyer was chewed out by another Judge.

So, recusal is insufficient when based on rumor. Nothing was shown that would prevent a Lawyer acting in their duty from questioning a Judge based on rumor.

[TAO]

ok, you first said "But it was also established in that thread that rumors do not provide a good enough basis for doubt." But the other thread nor the proponents established this, they did not establish that they could not question a lawyer based on a rumor, just think about just about any information a lawyer could get would be rumor until the judge confirms or denies.

From Wikipedia:

a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

He didn't do that, and, also from Wikipedia:

A judge who has grounds to recuse himself is expected to do so.

So the question becomes, is his impartiality reasonably questionable? I say yes. You say no.

The other thread only should that rumor is not a sufficient basis for recusal. The other thread did not establish that lawyers could not question based on rumor. A case posted in that thread was about a lawyer saying "Well X Judge worked for Y person who is now the defendant 60years ago, so the Judge is biased" That lawyer was chewed out by another Judge.

It's the responsibility of the judge to note that he should be recused, not the lawyers. Recusal may only be bipassed if, "all parties and the judge agree, although in practice this rarely occurs." (Wikipedia). Because Judge Walker did not even make his potential recusability available to the laywers, a court proceeding will go on to an appellate court on the issue.

So, recusal is insufficient when based on rumor. Nothing was shown that would prevent a Lawyer acting in their duty from questioning a Judge based on rumor.

It is not the lawyers responsibility to recuse - it is the judges. The lawyers only get involved if the judge does not recuse himself when he should - as is the case here.

That's why the motion makes sense. If Judge Walker had provided the information in the case, we would not have this problem. But since he did not, it provides a base for the possibility of the cancellation of his decision. =/

Also, I read in this document, that if 'an attorney exercising ordinary care and reasonable diligence would not have felt compelled to expend limited resources on such a speculative undertaking', he would not be required to attempt to recuse a judge. In other words, you can only recuse based on reasonable speculation. They didn't have enough to actually do a recusal. Document here: http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinionInfo.asp?opinionid=18739

So now we go through a bunch of court trials again cauing more contention =(.

Mellow Wishes,

TAO