Jump to content

Voters Can Defend Prop 8


Mark Beesley

Recommended Posts

Not surprisingly, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the official proponents of a California Initiative have standing to defend such initiative when the governmental officials, normally charged with defending the constitutionality of such a law, decline to do so. See here.

So, the only effect the decision of Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger will have is to cost California taxpayers millions of dollars in private attorney general fees. Thanks guys. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Not surprisingly, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the official proponents of a California Initiative have standing to defend such initiative when the governmental officials, normally charged with defending the constitutionality of such a law, decline to do so. See here.

So, the only effect the decision of Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger will have is to cost California taxpayers millions of dollars in private attorney general fees. Thanks guys. :rolleyes:

We do live in some interesting times do we not?

Link to comment
Frankenstein:

No commandment was issued. Further using your logic only those judges that agree with the homosexual activists should have a say. Not just the Mormon ones, but the Catholics, black church members, and virtually all Protestants are to be excluded.

As for being a command or not probably depends on who you ask. I am there sure are some who considered it a command.

As for the logic, it is not mine, it is the logic of those who said judge walker should not have heard the case and the same who said one of the three judges should recuse because of his own wife being part of the aclu or whatever she is/was a part of.

Link to comment

As for being a command or not probably depends on who you ask. I am there sure are some who considered it a command.

As for the logic, it is not mine, it is the logic of those who said judge walker should not have heard the case and the same who said one of the three judges should recuse because of his own wife being part of the aclu or whatever she is/was a part of.

Frankenstein, if you think this is the logic of the proponents, you misunderstand them. You can view their brief here: Court Documents in the case along with the reply brief (which, like you, badly misunderstands their arguments), and their reply to the reply (which should be up soon). To get a taste of just some of the things the plaintiffs misunderstand, try: This link to Ed Whelan's Bench memos

On the topic of this thread, it was no surprise that the California Supreme Court would come back with a unanimous decision that they had standing. Another year down the drain, but at least this process will now get to the Supreme Court.

Link to comment

Ed whelan is a bad way to waste my time, I prefer wasting time in more enjoyable ways.

That's fine. Just don't try to argue against positions if you don't take the time to actually read them.

I have read articles on the ca court decision I agree with decision.

I wouldn't always trust news articles to explain the actual decision well, but that's a start.

Link to comment
Frankenstein, if you think this is the logic of the proponents, you misunderstand them. You can view their brief here: Court Documents in the case along with the reply brief (which, like you, badly misunderstands their arguments), and their reply to the reply (which should be up soon). To get a taste of just some of the things the plaintiffs misunderstand, try: This link to Ed Whelan's Bench memos On the topic of this thread, it was no surprise that the California Supreme Court would come back with a unanimous decision that they had standing. Another year down the drain, but at least this process will now get to the Supreme Court.

You do realize the judge ruled against prop 8 opponents arguments that Judge Walker should have reclused himself. If you only read right wing analysis of what they think the courts should rule, you miss the actually judicial rulings reasonings.

Link to comment

Frankenstein:

No commandment was issued. Further using your logic only those judges that agree with the homosexual activists should have a say. Not just the Mormon ones, but the Catholics, black church members, and virtually all Protestants are to be excluded.

I thought those kinds of individuals were already banned from hearing any lawsuits on this topic and those similar. We are talking California, aren'et we?

Link to comment

You do realize the judge ruled against prop 8 opponents arguments that Judge Walker should have reclused himself. If you only read right wing analysis of what they think the courts should rule, you miss the actually judicial rulings reasonings.

Yes, I understand the judge's arguments very well. I've read his entire opinion, the brief submitted by the proponents in appeal, the reply brief by the plaintiffs, and (when it appears on the website I linked) I will read the proponent's reply to the plaintiffs.

It might surprise you, but not every "right wing analysis" purposefully misunderstands or hides the actual judicial reasonings. The reasons are quite clear, and the counter-arguments given by the proponents are quite clear.

Here is the quick run-down of my impressions of the ruling and the appeal briefs: Judge Ware rightly understood that the the proponents were not seeking recusal on the grounds that Judge Walker is gay. Rather, because (1) he sits in the same position as the defendants before the court, (2) he didn't disclose this fact at the outset, and (3) there were other procedural irregularities which also (in light of (1) and (2)) throw doubt on Walker's impartiality.

The new judge ruled that there is no burden of disclosure when the disclosure might relate to personal matters. He further ruled that even if Judge Walker *was* interested in marrying his partner, and kept this secret, there would have been no burden to recuse because such a decision (to want to marry) wouldn't be "so powerful that it would render the judge incapable of performing his duties." Finally, he argued that Walker's similarity to the defendants is remote and removed.

The proponents rightly counter-argue that Judge Ware misunderstands the point of the disclosure rules--to give the lawyers all of the relevant facts in the judge's life relating to the case. They also rightly argue that the disclosure rules say nothing about "powerful interest." They point out that if a disclosure related to a personal issue the judge does not need to disclose it, because the judge can decide to simply not sit on the case. What a judge cannot do is both sit on the case and not disclose. Finally, they again show that Walker's relation to the gay couples is not remote or removed, but identically situated, and not a position shared by the community at large.

The plaintiffs then again raise the canard (rejected by Judge Ware) that this is about Walker's homosexuality--it isn't. They also raise the argument that even if Walker shares commonality with the couple, this is a characteristic of a protected class. They raise questions like: Should a pregnant woman judge need to recuse herself if she is ruling on a case of late-term abortion? Or should a black judge rule on a case involving inter-racial marriage in his precinct (say, back when it was illegal)?

The proponents (from what I've read of their reply) again make it clear that the answers to these questions depend (1) on whether the judge wants to express those possible new rights currently, (2) has disclosed all of the relevant facts to the parties, and (3) the judge's ruling would affect the judge herself--she is sitting on her own case.

Link to comment
It might surprise you, but not every "right wing analysis" purposefully misunderstands or hides the actual judicial reasonings. The reasons are quite clear, and the counter-arguments given by the proponents are quite clear.

Yeah, it seems that rather the Left does it quite often.

Link to comment
The new judge ruled that there is no burden of disclosure when the disclosure might relate to personal matters. He further ruled that even if Judge Walker *was* interested in marrying his partner, and kept this secret, there would have been no burden to recuse because such a decision (to want to marry) wouldn't be "so powerful that it would render the judge incapable of performing his duties." Finally, he argued that Walker's similarity to the defendants is remote and removed.

What I love most about prop 8 arguments is that they now have to test their claims in court. It seems like the judge fully understood the defendents argument, and rejected it in a court of law, not on a blogh or a right wing legal analysis website. As you know, this is in appeal where the defendents of prop 8 can try once again to disqualify judge walkers judgement, not on the merits of the case but because they feel Judge Walker should have stated what? that he was gay, no, that he might want to get married some day even when there is no indication of that and in fact if he wanted to marry his partner, he could have done so when gay marriage was legal.

I understand you don't like Judge Wares ruling, but it is entirely consistent with the accepted criteria for reclusion.

Link to comment

What I love most about prop 8 arguments is that they now have to test their claims in court.

I'm of the same opinion. I'm glad that the courts have now established they have the standing to do so. I have no doubt they are glad to have their day at court.
It seems like the judge fully understood the defendents argument,..
I agree.
...and rejected it in a court of law, not on a blogh or a right wing legal analysis website.
I believe I said as much in my analysis. However, I believe their claim that Judge Ware misunderstands the disclosure rules and make false special exemptions is a strong one. I'm more than willing to wait for the appellate courts to decide if that is the case or not.
As you know, this is in appeal where the defendents of prop 8 can try once again to disqualify judge walkers judgement, not on the merits of the case but because they feel Judge Walker should have stated what?
That he should have explained he was ruling on his own case. That he was granting himself rights that he presently was situated, in an identical relationship with the plaintiffs before him, to want to exercise. That these facts, when known, could lead someone to rightly question his impartiality.
...that he was gay, no,...
Good, you got that part right.
...that he might want to get married some day even when there is no indication of that and in fact if he wanted to marry his partner, he could have done so when gay marriage was legal.
Ah, but you see, Judge Ware ruled that the question of whether Walker wanted to get married was moot. According to Ware, Walker could have secretly been harboring a desire to marry his partner, and later revealed this to the media, and these facts still wouldn't have required disclosure. I think this badly misunderstands the disclosure rules (and makes your sentence moot). I imagine that one possibility is the appellate court will back away from Ware's sweeping ruling, and simply say (as you imply) there is no proof that Walker presently wanted to exercise the new right he established.

This situation is also addressed in the appellate briefs. Note in particular, we don't know whether Walker wanted to marry his partner because he didn't disclose that fact. If he had said he had no desire, then this would have already been dealt with.

I understand you don't like Judge Wares ruling, but it is entirely consistent with the accepted criteria for reclusion.
Feel free to explain why you believe so, and why the proponents appellate brief is lacking. I'm interested to hear why you think the points they raise do not show the opposite. In particular, do you question Ware's ruling that even if Walker had indeed told the media he was excited to marry his partner and that he had desired this since before he took the case, he still didn't need to disclose these facts?
Link to comment

Storm Rider:

California is a weird place, and I live here by choice. ;)

I believe that everyone including the propenents of Prop 8 are entitled to their day in court. Unless and until it is proven that a particular judge is incapable of rendering an impartial decision, let them judge the case on the merits.

California is not weird, but the people are crazy.

Link to comment

I'm of the same opinion. I'm glad that the courts have now established they have the standing to do so. I have no doubt they are glad to have their day at court

I agree.

Actually I think both sides are happy that prop 8 supporters will have standing. From what I read, Owens had to bring up the issue so that it would not be an issue further down the road. The last thing the plaintiffs want is for this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court and then have that court rule narrowly that prop 8 supporters don't have standing. Those fighting for equality want this ruling to apply to all of America. I realize that the Supreme Court could still rule more narrow than that, but it is less likely for them to rule at least on this aspect of the case.

I believe I said as much in my analysis. However, I believe their claim that Judge Ware misunderstands the disclosure rules and make false special exemptions is a strong one. I'm more than willing to wait for the appellate courts to decide if that is the case or not.

That he should have explained he was ruling on his own case. That he was granting himself rights that he presently was situated, in an identical relationship with the plaintiffs before him, to want to exercise. That these facts, when known, could lead someone to rightly question his impartiality.

Good, you got that part right.

Ah, but you see, Judge Ware ruled that the question of whether Walker wanted to get married was moot. According to Ware, Walker could have secretly been harboring a desire to marry his partner, and later revealed this to the media, and these facts still wouldn't have required disclosure. I think this badly misunderstands the disclosure rules (and makes your sentence moot). I imagine that one possibility is the appellate court will back away from Ware's sweeping ruling, and simply say (as you imply) there is no proof that Walker presently wanted to exercise the new right he established.

This situation is also addressed in the appellate briefs. Note in particular, we don't know whether Walker wanted to marry his partner because he didn't disclose that fact. If he had said he had no desire, then this would have already been dealt with.

Feel free to explain why you believe so, and why the proponents appellate brief is lacking. I'm interested to hear why you think the points they raise do not show the opposite. In particular, do you question Ware's ruling that even if Walker had indeed told the media he was excited to marry his partner and that he had desired this since before he took the case, he still didn't need to disclose these facts?

I guess here I am in agreement with the judge. I think Judge Ware is fully aware with disclosure laws. The criteria seems to be that reclusion is in place for much more narrow benefits to the judge. For example personal financial gain or a case where his family member is involved. If his ruling only affected a handful of marriages and his were one of those relationships, then there would be an argument that he should disclose or recluse himself. But when it is a ruling that is so broad such as abortion issues for a woman, or race issues for a race, or in this case a ruling for all gay Americans, then reclusion or disclosure has not been required. It is the same standard for reclusion that the Mormon judge serving on the 9th circuit does not have to recluse himself just because he is a Mormon and believes he should follow the counsel of the prophet. Or a practicing catholic can rule on abortion cases. If your narrow definition of reclusion was practiced, then half of the members of the Supreme Court would have to recluse themselves on the prop 8 trial because they are Catholic and have a vested interest in protecting the Catholic position.

That is what I got out of Judge Ware's ruling, and that is what seems to be accepted practice. Do you have any cases that would support the prop 8 and your position where such a broad reach of a law was dismissed because of reclusion?

In my opinion, it appears the prop 8 supports want very much to keep their arguments out of the courts where they have to stand up to actual laws and truth rather than distortions of truth that has been so prevalent in their ad campaigns and internet blogs. It is why the prop 8 supports are fighting so hard to not let out to the public those video recordings of the trial. They don't want the public to see their case. To say it is because they don't want people harassed is just another in a string of distortions they try to deceive the public with. After all, every person who testified on prop 8 is now a matter of public record. THEY ARE ALREADY KNOWN. So why don' they want these tapes released? Because they don want the public to see that their case is so unbelievable weak. And it is that reason why the gay community is anxious for this case to precede to the Supreme Court. Do you want those trial tapes released?

Link to comment

Actually I think both sides are happy that prop 8 supporters will have standing. From what I read, Owens had to bring up the issue so that it would not be an issue further down the road. The last thing the plaintiffs want is for this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court and then have that court rule narrowly that prop 8 supporters don't have standing. Those fighting for equality want this ruling to apply to all of America. I realize that the Supreme Court could still rule more narrow than that, but it is less likely for them to rule at least on this aspect of the case.

Then you have read incorrectly, or the sources you have read are making things up. The plaintiff's lawyers have consistently argued in their briefs that the Proposition 8 proponents did not have standing. To pretend that this latest ruling from the California Supreme Court was what these lawyers secretly wanted belies the facts.

Furthermore, these same lawyers were taken to task by Judge Reinhardt Concurring Opinion for their (frankly puzzling) behavior which has prevented others who clearly would have had such standing from stepping in earlier, and thus prevented this case from moving towards the Supreme Court at an expedited rate. A year later, things will start moving again.

I guess here I am in agreement with the judge. I think Judge Ware is fully aware with disclosure laws. The criteria seems to be that reclusion is in place for much more narrow benefits to the judge. For example personal financial gain or a case where his family member is involved. If his ruling only affected a handful of marriages in this case a ruling for all gay Americans, then reclusion or disclosure has not been required. It is the same standard for reclusion that the Mormon judge serving on the 9th circuit does not have to recluse himself just because he is a Mormon and believes he should follow the counsel of the prophet. Or a practicing catholic can rule on abortion cases. If your narrow definition of reclusion was practiced, then half of the members of the Supreme Court would have to recluse themselves on the prop 8 trial because they are Catholic and have a vested interest in protecting the Catholic position.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I think that you are wrong on a few fronts. Let me sketch the reasons.

First, I think Judge Ware misunderstands the disclosure rules, on a fundamental basis, specifically regarding the presumption of impartiality. This presumption is in place to protect litigants, not the judge him/herself from having to talk about personal issues. Second, you seem to misunderstand the point of the thought-experiments regarding race/abortion/marriage. Of course those decisions have far reaching applications to all Americans, in some form or another. But not just anyone can sue the court if they want an abortion--not even just any woman. She would have to have standing to do so-- which would mean either that she was denied (or was being denied) an abortion. These circumstances distinguish the plaintiffs from the general populace. If the judge is similarly situated, and doesn't disclose this fact, it bears on his/her impartiality--because a judge cannot rule in their own case. The point of the proponents is that all of the reasons/situations given by the plaintiffs in their original suit, for this right to gay marriage, were shared by Walker and not disclosed. Now, the courts may disagree with this analysis, and simply say that it doesn't matter whether or not a judge actually decides a case involving rights they currently want to exercise, in their present (and not some contingent future state) and personalized situation. But that has nothing to do with the decision affecting women generally in an abortion case, or gay marriage affecting all Americans and practicing homosexuals in particular. [in other, simpler, words it has nothing to do with Judge Walker being gay, or even personally favoring extending rights to homosexuals. It has everything to do with his present situation in wanting to rule on an issue which he would stand as a plaintiff before his own court if all the facts were known.] Regarding a Mormon judge, this argument would say nothing about them presiding over a gay marriage trial, because they would not be ruling on their own case. However, as I understand the rules, a Mormon judge certainly WOULD be required to disclose the fact (if it were a fact) that their church leaders commanded them to rule a certain way on a constitutional issue. (They would not need to disclose anything about any commandment on what they should vote for, as that has nothing to do with whether the law is constitutional or not.) Similarly, neither would a practicing Catholic need to disclose his feelings about the morality of abortion, because his decision isn't about the morality of the law, but rather whether it is constitutional.

So, to sum up, this argument really is quite narrow (which is a good thing), regarding a judge ruling on his/her own case. It has nothing to do with Judge Walker being positioned to favor gay marriage, in and of itself, but rather with Judge Walker wanting to exercise that right in his own life via his own ruling.

Further, I believe that a reasonable person would agree that it would be reasonable to question Walker's impartiality, if indeed he wanted to marry his partner. Thus, Walker's failure to disclose whether this was the case directly runs afoul of the wording of the disclosure rules.

That is what I got out of Judge Ware's ruling, and that is what seems to be accepted practice. Do you have any cases that would support the prop 8 and your position where such a broad reach of a law was dismissed because of reclusion?
I've linked to their opening brief which has all of the relevant case law. Since it can be hard to find among the huge number of files at the site I gave, here is the specific pdf: Opening Brief
In my opinion, it appears the prop 8 supports want very much to keep their arguments out of the courts where they have to stand up to actual laws and truth rather than distortions of truth that has been so prevalent in their ad campaigns and internet blogs. It is why the prop 8 supports are fighting so hard to not let out to the public those video recordings of the trial. They don't want the public to see their case.
You seem to be conflating two issues: arguing before judges in courtrooms, and having the video recordings of the trials made public. They are more than happy to do the first, and not happy about the second issue.

To be frank, I am almost entirely certain (just as I was concerning the outcome of the standing issue) that the video recordings will eventually be ruled to be kept secret. This is a no-brainer which, sadly, Ware got wrong also--but to an even greater degree than the disclosure issue--which he said some right things on. [i don't have a feeling which way the higher courts will rule on the recusal issue, but I don't think they will follow Ware's logic, rather I think they might use the argument you gave earlier.]

Let's talk about the video recordings, shall we? Before the trial Walker tried to video-tape the trial publicly. To do so he had to break the rules in his own court. The Supreme Court eventually had to rule that this was wrong, and stop the videotaping. Then, Walker says he is still going to video-tape the trial but only for his personal use. He gives his word as a US Justice. The proponents object, but Walker overrules this. Then, instead of keeping his word, Walker makes the tapes available to both parties for closing arguments. The proponents ask that the tapes be returned. Walker again rules this is unnecessary, and then makes the tapes part of the official record-but rules them sealed. Then, amazingly, after retiring he breaks his own seal by playing the video tapes in front of cameras!

To say it is because they don't want people harassed is just another in a string of distortions they try to deceive the public with.
Except that this was one of the reasons the Supreme Court gave for their initial ruling against Walker. Are you really trying to argue that you know better than the Supreme Court on this issue. (If you were unaware this is the argument the Supreme Court gave for keeping the trial untelevised in the first place, you might want to read more of the history on this issue.)
After all, every person who testified on prop 8 is now a matter of public record. THEY ARE ALREADY KNOWN. So why don' they want these tapes released?
Possibly for the reasons they actually gave, and which reasons the Supreme Court previously agreed would be reasons not to televise the proceedings, and yet the testimonies themselves, in printed form, remain public. But feel free to think of nefarious other motives if you prefer.
Because they don want the public to see that their case is so unbelievable weak. And it is that reason why the gay community is anxious for this case to precede to the Supreme Court. Do you want those trial tapes released?
First, who cares what the public can be made to think with clever manipulations from selected pieces of the video tapes--unless you want such public opinion to sway the justices. Second, no I don't want the trial tapes released. I am opposed to the public video-taping of any trial where one of the parties requests it not be done.

I think the entire episode is ridiculous, and shows how Walker was anything but impartial. Are you really suggesting that a Judge can lie in court, saying that the tapes will remain private, and then make them public? Are you really suggesting that there is no harassment of witnesses? That the tapes wouldn't be edited to portray the testimonies in a negative light?

Link to comment

Well I guess we will see how this all continues to play out.

Link to comment

Then you have read incorrectly, or the sources you have read are making things up. The plaintiff's lawyers have consistently argued in their briefs that the Proposition 8 proponents did not have standing. To pretend that this latest ruling from the California Supreme Court was what these lawyers secretly wanted belies the facts.

Furthermore, these same lawyers were taken to task by Judge Reinhardt Concurring Opinion for their (frankly puzzling) behavior which has prevented others who clearly would have had such standing from stepping in earlier, and thus prevented this case from moving toward the Supreme Court at an expedited rate. A year later, things will start moving again.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think that you are wrong on a few fronts. Let me sketch the reasons.

First, I think Judge Ware misunderstands the disclosure rules, on a fundamental basis, specifically regarding the presumption of impartiality. This presumption is in place to protect litigants, not the judge him/herself from having to talk about personal issues. Second, you seem to misunderstand the point of the thought-experiments regarding race/abortion/marriage. Of course those decisions have far reaching applications to all Americans, in some form or another. But not just anyone can sue the court if they want an abortion--not even just any woman. She would have to have standing to do so-- which would mean either that she was denied (or was being denied) an abortion. These circumstances distinguish the plaintiffs from the general populace. If the judge is similarly situated, and doesn't disclose this fact, it bears on his/her impartiality--because a judge cannot rule in their own case. The point of the proponents is that all of the reasons/situations given by the plaintiffs in their original suit, for this right to gay marriage, were shared by Walker and not disclosed. Now, the courts may disagree with this analysis, and simply say that it doesn't matter whether or not a judge actually decides a case involving rights they currently want to exercise, in their present (and not some contingent future state) and personalized situation. But that has nothing to do with the decision affecting women generally in an abortion case, or gay marriage affecting all Americans and practicing homosexuals in particular. [in other, simpler, words it has nothing to do with Judge Walker being gay, or even personally favoring extending rights to homosexuals. It has everything to do with his present situation in wanting to rule on an issue which he would stand as a plaintiff before his own court if all the facts were known.] Regarding a Mormon judge, this argument would say nothing about them presiding over a gay marriage trial, because they would not be ruling on their own case. However, as I understand the rules, a Mormon judge certainly WOULD be required to disclose the fact (if it were a fact) that their church leaders commanded them to rule a certain way on a constitutional issue. (They would not need to disclose anything about any commandment on what they should vote for, as that has nothing to do with whether the law is constitutional or not.) Similarly, neither would a practicing Catholic need to disclose his feelings about the morality of abortion, because his decision isn't about the morality of the law, but rather whether it is constitutional.

So, to sum up, this argument really is quite narrow (which is a good thing), regarding a judge ruling on his/her own case. It has nothing to do with Judge Walker being positioned to favor gay marriage, in and of itself, but rather with Judge Walker wanting to exercise that right in his own life via his own ruling.

Further, I believe that a reasonable person would agree that it would be reasonable to question Walker's impartiality, if indeed he wanted to marry his partner. Thus, Walker's failure to disclose whether this was the case directly runs afoul of the wording of the disclosure rules.

I've linked to their opening brief which has all of the relevant case law. Since it can be hard to find among the huge number of files at the site I gave, here is the specific pdf: Opening Brief

You seem to be conflating two issues: arguing before judges in courtrooms, and having the video recordings of the trials made public. They are more than happy to do the first, and not happy about the second issue.

To be frank, I am almost entirely certain (just as I was concerning the outcome of the standing issue) that the video recordings will eventually be ruled to be kept secret. This is a no-brainer which, sadly, Ware got wrong also--but to an even greater degree than the disclosure issue--which he said some right things on. [i don't have a feeling which way the higher courts will rule on the recusal issue, but I don't think they will follow Ware's logic, rather I think they might use the argument you gave earlier.]

Let's talk about the video recordings, shall we? Before the trial Walker tried to video-tape the trial publicly. To do so he had to break the rules in his own court. The Supreme Court eventually had to rule that this was wrong, and stop the videotaping. Then, Walker says he is still going to video-tape the trial but only for his personal use. He gives his word as a US Justice. The proponents object, but Walker overrules this. Then, instead of keeping his word, Walker makes the tapes available to both parties for closing arguments. The proponents ask that the tapes be returned. Walker again rules this is unnecessary, and then makes the tapes part of the official record-but rules them sealed. Then, amazingly, after retiring he breaks his own seal by playing the video tapes in front of cameras!

Except that this was one of the reasons the Supreme Court gave for their initial ruling against Walker. Are you really trying to argue that you know better than the Supreme Court on this issue. (If you were unaware this is the argument the Supreme Court gave for keeping the trial untelevised in the first place, you might want to read more of the history on this issue.)

Possibly for the reasons they actually gave, and which reasons the Supreme Court previously agreed would be reasons not to televise the proceedings, and yet the testimonies themselves, in printed form, remain public. But feel free to think of nefarious other motives if you prefer.

First, who cares what the public can be made to think with clever manipulations from selected pieces of the video tapes--unless you want such public opinion to sway the justices. Second, no I don't want the trial tapes released. I am opposed to the public video-taping of any trial where one of the parties requests it not be done.

I think the entire episode is ridiculous, and shows how Walker was anything but impartial. Are you really suggesting that a Judge can lie in court, saying that the tapes will remain private, and then make them public? Are you really suggesting that there is no harassment of witnesses? That the tapes wouldn't be edited to portray the testimonies in a negative light?

Dang it I hate when facts strip the opposition of legitimacy. It is simply unfair; shame on you. :help:

Link to comment

Dang it I hate when facts strip the opposition of legitimacy. It is simply unfair; shame on you. :help:

"Indifference twoards debate over an issue" should not be mistaken for "being stripped of legitimacy," nor a reason to prematurely presume the legal high ground.

Each of us, (including Zeta Flux) will obviously hold our own private opinion about whether Walker's ruling was unbiased or not. One thing is certain: his ruling is and will continue to be thoroughly examined in the appelate courts.

If his ruling was unsound, and the merets unjustly or inappropriately biased, I trust that higher courts will reverse his hearing (a course I don't believe is likely).

One good piece of news has just been announced: the appelate courts just announced they are consolatating the two issues in the court, thus ensuring a more comprehensive review:

Ninth Circuit To Consider Prop 8 Appeal Alongside Challenge to Walker's Impartiality Because He Is Gay

Posted by Chris Geidner |

November 21, 2011 8:34 PM | Permalink

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will be deciding the appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional alongside the appeal of U.S. District Court Judge James Ware's ruling denying the Proposition 8 proponents' attempt to have Walker's ruling vacated because they argued he was biased because he is gay and has a partner.

ca9-thumb-300x299-727-thumb-300x299-819.pngThe decision was announced in a one-sentence order issued this afternoon in granting a request from the proponents that the matters be consolidated.

On June 14, Ware ruled that the Aug. 4, 2010, decision by now-retired Judge Walker could not be vacated -- as the proponents of Proposition 8 argued in court on June 13 -- because Walker is gay and has a partner.

This past week, an opinion by the California Supreme Court asserting that the proponents of an initiative have the authority under state law to bring an appeal when state officials fail to do so put the underlying appeal of Walker's decision back in the hands of the Ninth Circuit. Although the federal appeals court is yet to decide whether the proponents have standing to bring their appeal and have called for additional briefing on the matter due by Dec. 2, lawyers for the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8 say the appeals judges are likely to find the proponents have federal standing in light of the state court's opinion.

With today's order, all of the questions relating to the validity and merits of the constitutionality of Proposition 8 could be decided by the Ninth Circuit in one decision, allowing for the most clean appeal possible to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The only ancillary matter still unconsolidated is the question of whether the tapes of the Proposition 8 trial conducted by Walker in January 2010 and concluded that June can be released to the media and public. The Ninth Circuit oral arguments on the appeal of that question will be held at 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time Dec. 8.

Link to comment

Sadly, note that the news article posted by Daniel2 once again demonstrates the danger of relying to much on how this issue is presented in the media. They, wrongly, assert that part of the hearing is about "Proposition 8 proponents' attempt to have Walker's ruling vacated because they argued he was biased because he is gay and has a partner." This is factually wrong, as explained previously.

That said, it is a good thing (agreed upon by both parties, as far as I understand) that the proceedings have been consolidated.

Link to comment

Sadly, note that the news article posted by Daniel2 once again demonstrates the danger of relying to much on how this issue is presented in the media. They, wrongly, assert that part of the hearing is about "Proposition 8 proponents' attempt to have Walker's ruling vacated because they argued he was biased because he is gay and has a partner." This is factually wrong, as explained previously.

That said, it is a good thing (agreed upon by both parties, as far as I understand) that the proceedings have been consolidated.

Indeed, Zeta, I was intending to comment on the spin--only to argue the point that it's actually facturally accurate to say that the Prop 8 supporters are attacking Walker's ability to objectively rule precisely "because he is gay and has a partner."

In my view, the fact that it's Walker's sexuality that is being attacked is simply illustrated by making the point that if Walker "was straight and had a partner," such an objection over his alleged inabiliy to rule objectively would not exist. It is precisely because Walker is "gay" and "has a partner" that the attack on his impartiality has been made.

Spin aside, for a moment--the good news is that we all have brains and hopefully thoughtful people will dig further to fully examine the issue to understand the facts beyond the perception.

Regardless of either your "spin" or my "spin" of that aspect, however, I think we're definitely in agreement (as are both parties) that it's good that the proceedings have been consolidated and the merets of Walker's ruling (and the case made by both sides leading up to that ruling) will be reviewed and additional judgements issued by a series of appelate courts.

My view,

Daniel

Link to comment

Indeed, Zeta, I was intending to comment on the spin--only to argue the point that it's actually facturally accurate to say that the Prop 8 supporters are attacking Walker's ability to objectively rule precisely "because he is gay and has a partner."

In my view, the fact that it's Walker's sexuality that is being attacked is simply illustrated by making the point that if Walker "was straight and had a partner," such an objection over his alleged inabiliy to rule objectively would not exist. It is precisely because Walker is "gay" and "has a partner" that the attack on his impartiality has been made.

This is factually incorrect. Indeed, if Walker was straight and had a long-term partner, and was ruling in a case which extended his right to marry said partner when that right was not present before, he would be in precisely the same situation of needing to disclose this information. And this is not just my impression of the proponents' argument, but they explicitly say this (and other things) in their brief.

Both you and the article incorrectly represent the arguments put forth by the proponents. Further, even Judge Ware recognized this fact. In the future, I would recommend that if you want to criticize someone's position, you should make sure you know what that position is, possibly by reading what they actually wrote about it instead of what others write.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...