Lds Ched De Mission Steps Down....

[frankenstein]

In other words, you can only recuse based on reasonable speculation. They didn't have enough to actually do a recusal.

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

Mellow Wishes,

TAO

Tao, you do not understand the issue.

Recusal is a the Act of a Judge not hearing a case because of a conflict whether real or not.

The Act of raising the issue of biase with a Judge is simply that, the act, undertaking, raising the question what have you of raising the issue of impartiality.

The duty of raising the issue of biase is on both the Judge and Litigant has a duty - the proponents even admit as much.

A litigant can bring the issue up OR the Judge can.

Once again, the recusal is different from raising the question of impartiality. A Litigant has a duty to raise the issue of impartiality.

Secondly, the motion filing does not say that rumor is insufficient for a litigant to raise the issue of bias. Also, the proponents try and use case law from the 6th Circuit to claim that they (proponents) do not have a duty in the 9th Circuit; but that is not how it work. Each Circuit is separate unto itself, a Circuit may, by Act of the Judges may adopt the procedures or policies of another Circuit. Until the 9th Circuit speaks on the issue the litigant had a duty to act.

And please understand that asking a Judge about the Judge's bias is not recusal, the Judge not hearing and asking a fellow judge to hear the case is called recusal.

[TAO]

Tao, you do not understand the issue.

Recusal is a the Act of a Judge not hearing a case because of a conflict whether real or not.

The Act of raising the issue of biase with a Judge is simply that, the act, undertaking, raising the question what have you of raising the issue of impartiality.

Precisely, raising the issue of bias is what happens when the lawyers think a judge did not recuse himself when he should have.

The duty of raising the issue of biase is on both the Judge and Litigant has a duty - the proponents even admit as much.

However, recusal was only the responsibility of the judge. He didn't do that, so he is responsible for not recusing himself, and responsible for not raising the issue of bias. The lawyers are only responsible for not raising the issue of bias.

A litigant can bring the issue up OR the Judge can.

Once again, the recusal is different from raising the question of impartiality. A Litigant has a duty to raise the issue of impartiality.

The litigant and the judge have it both. If the judge did not do this, it still acts as an obstruction of justice. That is the problem we are talking about here.

Secondly, the motion filing does not say that rumor is insufficient for a litigant to raise the issue of bias.

cfr.

Also, the proponents try and use case law from the 6th Circuit to claim that they (proponents) do not have a duty in the 9th Circuit; but that is not how it work. Each Circuit is separate unto itself, a Circuit may, by Act of the Judges may adopt the procedures or policies of another Circuit. Until the 9th Circuit speaks on the issue the litigant had a duty to act.

And yet, so does the judge have a duty to act. As said, that is an obstruction of justice.

And please understand that asking a Judge about the Judge's bias is not recusal, the Judge not hearing and asking a fellow judge to hear the case is called recusal.

The judge has a responsibility to do both. Because Walker did neither, the Prop 8 proponents have a valid point when they question why he did not bring up the issue. He was at fault there, which could throw up the decision Judge Walker made.

In other words, if Judge Walker is found to have done something improper during the court case, the whole thing has to start over again. It doesn't matter if the lawyers had partial responsibility. The judge also had responsibility.

Bleh... I hate talking about legal terms, tis so ferocious.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[frankenstein]

It doesn't matter if the lawyers had partial responsibility. The judge also had responsibility.

Best Wishes,

TAO

its does matter that the lawyers/litigants had a responsibility, as the litigants failure to raise the question of bias could be deemed as consent. There are very few situation where one person duty to act is excused because another person did not act.

[TAO]

its does matter that the lawyers/litigants had a responsibility, as the litigants failure to raise the question of bias could be deemed as consent. There are very few situation where one person duty to act is excused because another person did not act.

True. We will have to see how this one goes, I guess. Is it not getting appealed to the higher court anyways?

Bleh, the court system is such a messe, don't you agree =P.

Confuzzled Wishes,

TAO

[Zeta-Flux]

To clarify some issues regarding recusal:

The proponents of prop 8 did not, and are still not, suggesting that Walker should have recused himself because he is gay.

They are suggesting he should have recused himself because he granted to himself a valuable legal right which he has a particularized interest in using.

The fact he had a particularized interest was only recently disclosed by Walker, which is why the motion was only recently filed.

[cdowis]

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

Jaybear,

Just curious about that word "right" to have a license (to marry).

Do you agree that a blind person have a "right" to have a driver's license? Help me understand what you mean by this word.

I was under the assumption that a license is not a right, that it is a privlege granted by the civil authorities to individuals who meet certain conditions. I think, for example, that a blind person does not have a right to a driver's license, but perhaps you can clarify my thinking on that. If I oppose blind people from that driver's license, am I fighting to "take away" their rights?

Help us to understand your position.

[frankenstein]

Jaybear,

Just curious about that word "right" to have a license (to marry).

Do you agree that a blind person have a "right" to have a driver's license? Help me understand what you mean by this word.

I was under the assumption that a license is not a right, that it is a privlege granted by the civil authorities to individuals who meet certain conditions. I think, for example, that a blind person does not have a right to a driver's license, but perhaps you can clarify my thinking on that. If I oppose blind people from that driver's license, am I fighting to "take away" their rights?

Help us to understand your position.

Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundamental right. See SCOTUS

And in California where marriage to a person of ones own choosing (within some limits) was infact a true right to all Californians, this fundamental right was taken away by popular vote.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear,

Just curious about that word "right" to have a license (to marry).

Do you agree that a blind person have a "right" to have a driver's license? Help me understand what you mean by this word.

I was under the assumption that a license is not a right, that it is a privlege granted by the civil authorities to individuals who meet certain conditions. I think, for example, that a blind person does not have a right to a driver's license, but perhaps you can clarify my thinking on that. If I oppose blind people from that driver's license, am I fighting to "take away" their rights?

Help us to understand your position.

If you sincerely want to understand my position, read this article about the marriage of Richard Ramirez, AKA the Night Stalker while he was on death row.

Now answer this question honestly, do you think Ramirez was allowed to marry because it was a privilege extended to him as an exemplary prisoner, or because that it was a right that the state could not be taken away from him, even though he was a convicted murderer?

[frankenstein]

They are suggesting he should have recused himself because he granted to himself a valuable legal right which he has a particularized interest in using.

which would be the case for any judge that a reasonable person could say wants to protect marriage or be married, so then we are left with no one to hear the case because any judge will have granted themself a valuable legal right in which that judge regardless of sexual orientation could be accused of having a particularized interest in.

Do you see how unreasonable the argument is? If it is reasonable to question a gay judge in a relationship then it is reasonable to question a hetero judge in a relationship, or a judge not in a relationship who has ever expressed a desire to be married or has been in a long term relationship. By filing the motion the proponents are saying that it is reasonable to assume that a person in a long term relationship wants to be married.

The unreasonableness the proponents argument is just dumbfounding, just as it is unreasonable for Peter Vidmar to have stepped down.

[Jeff K.]

The right was created by a judge, which interpreted the Constitution in what the voters claim was an incorrect interpretation. They therefore rectified the possibility of that erroneious interpretation through prop 8. It wasn't taken away, it never existed, was artificially inferred and then correctly removed.

[Jaybear]

The right was created by a judge, which interpreted the Constitution in what the voters claim was an incorrect interpretation. They therefore rectified the possibility of that erroneious interpretation through prop 8. It wasn't taken away, it never existed, was artificially inferred and then correctly removed.

Other than the fact that ...

it was the CA Supreme Court, not a judge.

The CA Supreme Court held that the ban on gay marriage violated CA Constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

The voters approved a ballot initiative which amended the CA Constitution and not as you say declared the ruling to be an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.

Notwithstanding the amendment, the gay couples married in the interim were not impacted by the change.

... you make a valid point.

But, I can see why your spin on the facts, would help ease the conscious of someone troubled by the fact that they voted to take away constitutional rights.

[frankenstein]

The right was created by a judge, which interpreted the Constitution in what the voters claim was an incorrect interpretation. They therefore rectified the possibility of that erroneious interpretation through prop 8. It wasn't taken away, it never existed, was artificially inferred and then correctly removed.

if something never existed then that something could not be taken because it never existed thus there was no need for Prop 8, because prop 8 was against something that never existed.

also, someone better the 18k ss legally married couples in California.

[cdowis]

Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundamental right. See SCOTUS

Can a man marry his majority age, consenting daughter? Can a man marry his full sister, his mother?

Just curious how SCOTUS ruled on those issues.

Or does society have a right to govern the choice of marriage companions, within certain boundaries.

[frankenstein]

Can a man marry his majority age, consenting daughter? Can a man marry his full sister, his mother?

Just curious wherer you stand.

Or does society have a right to govern the choice of marriage companions, within certain boundaries.

read the full post before attempt to set an ill-conceived trap, go back and read my full post, then please rephrase your question.

You seem so tiresomely ignorant of marriage law in the United States (your post about marriage and drivers license proves such), that it would a service to all if you first became educated on marriage law in the United States and the arguments presented concerning ssm.

[Jeff K.]

Other than the fact that ...

it was the CA Supreme Court, not a judge.

The CA Supreme Court held that the ban on gay marriage violated CA Constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

The voters approved a ballot initiative which amended the CA Constitution and not as you say declared the ruling to be an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.

Notwithstanding the amendment, the gay couples married in the interim were not impacted by the change.

... you make a valid point.

But, I can see why your spin on the facts, would help ease the conscious of someone troubled by the fact that they voted to take away constitutional rights.

A split decision among three judges as I recall, two that had a penchant for invention for liberal causes. And equal protection does not mean gay people can marry, anymore than polygamists can, or children or pederasts. It is not a cure all for whatever group wants to change the definition of things.

The voters approved the ballot measure because it corrected a misconception. The motivation is clear even if you do not want to admit to it.

Those already married may or may not be impacted by the final outcome. Simply because a judge attempted to make it a fait acompli in order to force one decision in favor of his position doesn't make it legal in the end.

[cdowis]

read the full post before attempt to set an ill-conceived trap, go back and read my full post, then please rephrase your question.

You seem so tiresomely ignorant of marriage law in the United States (your post about marriage and drivers license proves such), that it would a service to all if you first became educated on marriage law in the United States and the arguments presented concerning ssm.

1. Please give us the exact quote from your post that answers my question, or, at the very least, the post number.

2. If you don't like my posts, I suggest that you put me on ignore. Your condenscending comment is not a response, but a lack of response.

I will continue to participate in this thread, so if you find my posts so offensive, just ignore me...... please....

Anyway, if you take away the authority of civil authorities to govern marriage, then you destroy marriage itself. It has no meaning in society at all.

I suggest that is the ultimate goal of some individuals.

[Jeff K.]

read the full post before attempt to set an ill-conceived trap, go back and read my full post, then please rephrase your question.

You seem so tiresomely ignorant of marriage law in the United States (your post about marriage and drivers license proves such), that it would a service to all if you first became educated on marriage law in the United States and the arguments presented concerning ssm.

When marriage law is overturned and any definition can be made to fit then all doors are opened. It is your ignorance on the implications that seems somewhat surprising. Any group can claim a redefinition. There was no restriction on the decisions made.

[Jaybear]

I will continue to participate in this thread, so if you find my posts so offensive, just ignore me...... please....

Anyway, if you take away the authority of civil authorities to govern marriage, then you destroy marriage itself. It has no meaning in society at all.

You didn't answer my question. I will ask again. Do you think that Ramirez AKA the night stalker was allowed to marry while on death row, because it a privilege he had earned, or a right that could not be taken away by the state?

[Jaybear]

The voters approved the ballot measure because it corrected a misconception. The motivation is clear even if you do not want to admit to it.

Prop 8 did not change the ruling, it changed the constitution. Prop 8 said nothing about the court ruling. If Prop 8 had been voted down, that would not have mean the Court got it right.

You are really going out on limb to rationalize your belief that prior to the passage of Prop 8, gays did not have the right to marry.

[frankenstein]

1. Please give us the exact quote from your post that answers my question, or, at the very least, the post number.

2. If you don't like my posts, I suggest that you put me on ignore. Your condenscending comment is not a response, but a lack of response.

I will continue to participate in this thread, so if you find my posts so offensive, just ignore me...... please....

Anyway, if you take away the authority of civil authorities to govern marriage, then you destroy marriage itself. It has no meaning in society at all.

I suggest that is the ultimate goal of some individuals.

If you up to speed on marriage in the United State you would have never made the comparison of a marriage to a drivers license.

As for your statement 1 above, got back to trap post you created, and then go back and read the FULL post of mine that you quoted from.

[Jeff K.]

Prop 8 did not change the ruling, it changed the constitution. Prop 8 said nothing about the court ruling. If Prop 8 had been voted down, that would not have mean the Court got it right.

You are really going out on limb to rationalize your belief that prior to the passage of Prop 8, gays did not have the right to marry.

It corrected a bad ruling and clarified the constitution. Sorry if you don't like it. Your interpretation is not reflected in either the vote or original intent. You simply made up the idea that the right always existed under the California Constitution. It did not.

You cannot change history in an attempt undermine the fact that the original definition by ocmmon law was between a man and a woman. It seems you are the one out on a limb.

[Jaybear]

It corrected a bad ruling and clarified the constitution. Sorry if you don't like it.

It's not a matter of whether I like it, its a matter of fact.

The ruling was not a "bad" or a "good" ruling. It was simply a ruling.

The vote did not correct the ruling, or "clarify" the constitution.

In as simple terms as I can use, Prop 8 amended the CA constitution, effectively rendering the earlier ruling moot, except as to those gay couples who had married in the interim.

Your characterization of what happened is sloppy, incoherent, misleading and agenda driven.

You simply made up the idea that the right always existed under the California Constitution. It did not.

You cannot change history in an attempt undermine the fact that the original definition by ocmmon law was between a man and a woman. It seems you are the one out on a limb.

You are conflating my idea of what is a "right," with that of the CA Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of what rights emanate from the CA Constitution.

[Jeff K.]

You tend to conflate facts with opinions.

And rulings can indeed be good or bad. If you don't believe me look to Plessy v. Ferguson.

The vote indeed clarified the constitution and limited judicial activism.

In as simple terms as I can use, Prop 8 amended the CA constitution, effectively rendering the earlier ruling moot, except as to those gay couples who had married in the interim.

Not necessarily. Depends on a number of issues.

Your characterization of what happened is sloppy, incoherent, misleading and agenda driven.

An accurate summation of the judicial process and what happened.

Quote

You simply made up the idea that the right always existed under the California Constitution. It did not.

You cannot change history in an attempt undermine the fact that the original definition by ocmmon law was between a man and a woman. It seems you are the one out on a limb.

You are conflating my idea of what is a "right," with that of the CA Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of what rights emanate from the CA Constitution.

No, you take a false neutral point on the matter and expect us to believe it. Sorry but your posts are fairly indicative of which way you desired the courts to rule. The CA Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of rights. The Constitution when changed is the final arbiter of such rights, as is the Federal Supreme Court and the US Constitutional amendment process.

You should look it up in law books if you disagree.

[Daniel2]

...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

I'm sorry, TAO, but I believe you are incorrect that Judge Walker's decision to keep his personal life private had anything to do with the reason why this case proceeded to a higher court--it was clear to everyone watching that this case was going to be appealed, regardless of the ruling--and will likely continue to be appealed until it reaches SCOTUS.

Judge Walker's relationship and/or sexual orientation has had nothing to do with why this case is in appeal, nor should it, IMO. Further, I also don't believe his relationship-status or his sexual orientation will it eventually have any bearing on how higher courts rule on the issue.

Darin

[Daniel2]

which would be the case for any judge that a reasonable person could say wants to protect marriage or be married, so then we are left with no one to hear the case because any judge will have granted themself a valuable legal right in which that judge regardless of sexual orientation could be accused of having a particularized interest in.

Do you see how unreasonable the argument is? If it is reasonable to question a gay judge in a relationship then it is reasonable to question a hetero judge in a relationship, or a judge not in a relationship who has ever expressed a desire to be married or has been in a long term relationship. By filing the motion the proponents are saying that it is reasonable to assume that a person in a long term relationship wants to be married.

The unreasonableness the proponents argument is just dumbfounding, just as it is unreasonable for Peter Vidmar to have stepped down.

Well said, Frank.

Darin