Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Ifreann]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

It'll look bad and....em....something. That'll lead to another Bush, I think.

Kind of what he said. I do not care about there being a gay judge, so try as you might to make me out to be an inhumane ass...but I am ok with his sexual orientation. It is not my cup of tea, but he is free to be whatever he wants.

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

The idea that I must somehow prove that Judge Walker was biased in his decision is purely left up to speculation and opinion on both sides of the fence. Even for those of us in the middle, who have chosen not to pick a side in the fight yet clearly understand that the impression of bias is evident in this situation whether we all see it or not.

Also, Back onto my statement of being careful who is given a case to prevent the perception of bias. Should a "black" judge be given authority to rule over a civil rights case? The answer is situational. If said Judge is known to have a personal bias or "opinion" on the topic of ruling...no. If you can prove (which is the key word) that he can be impartial (ie: he has no dog unlike Judge Walker in this situation) then sure. Same goes for gun laws and judges that hunt, religious rights and judges whom are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc.

You are correct that I do not want to see another George Bush put in office. However, if stuff like this keeps happening (ie: perception of bias in a very important and groundbreaking court case) the looney tooned right wing will vote Congress back to Republican and Sarah Palin will own the Whitehouse.

But if a straight Hindu judge ruled the exact same way, the loony right wing would vote Obama back in.

[Ashas Favor]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

It'll look bad and....em....something. That'll lead to another Bush, I think.

Kind of what he said. I do not care about there being a gay judge, so try as you might to make me out to be an inhumane ass...but I am ok with his sexual orientation. It is not my cup of tea, but he is free to be whatever he wants.

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

The idea that I must somehow prove that Judge Walker was biased in his decision is purely left up to speculation and opinion on both sides of the fence. Even for those of us in the middle, who have chosen not to pick a side in the fight yet clearly understand that the impression of bias is evident in this situation whether we all see it or not.

Also, Back onto my statement of being careful who is given a case to prevent the perception of bias. Should a "black" judge be given authority to rule over a civil rights case? The answer is situational. If said Judge is known to have a personal bias or "opinion" on the topic of ruling...no. If you can prove (which is the key word) that he can be impartial (ie: he has no dog unlike Judge Walker in this situation) then sure. Same goes for gun laws and judges that hunt, religious rights and judges whom are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc.

You are correct that I do not want to see another George Bush put in office. However, if stuff like this keeps happening (ie: perception of bias in a very important and groundbreaking court case) the looney tooned right wing will vote Congress back to Republican and Sarah Palin will own the Whitehouse.

But if a straight Hindu judge ruled the exact same way, the loony right wing would vote Obama back in.

If a straight Hindu judge ruled the same way...there would be absolutely no perception of bias and I would not be causing a ruckus on a liberal majority sight. I would still be living in my cave out in Arizona...:-P

[Ifreann]

But if a straight Hindu judge ruled the exact same way, the loony right wing would vote Obama back in.

If a straight Hindu judge ruled the same way...there would be absolutely no perception of bias and I would not be causing a ruckus on a liberal majority sight. I would still be living in my cave out in Arizona...:-P

So you are the doom and destruction that befalls us if there's some vague perception of bias? Oh noes.

[Ashas Favor]

But if a straight Hindu judge ruled the exact same way, the loony right wing would vote Obama back in.

If a straight Hindu judge ruled the same way...there would be absolutely no perception of bias and I would not be causing a ruckus on a liberal majority sight. I would still be living in my cave out in Arizona...:-P

So you are the doom and destruction that befalls us if there's some vague perception of bias? Oh noes.

You are hands down the best troll I have ever had the privilege to post alongside. Seriously lol.

[Ashmoria]

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

what makes you think that only christians oppose gay marriage?

i dont think you can find a judge who wouldnt be in some category of group that either pro or anti gay marriage.

all that matters is that the judge rules on the LAW.

[Tekania]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

LOGIC AND REASON DIDN'T WIN, HOMOSEXUALS WERE ALLOWED TO MARRY!

Contrary to prop8 proponent opinions "because we said so" classifies neither as "logic" nor "reason.

[Ashmoria]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

LOGIC AND REASON DIDN'T WIN, HOMOSEXUALS WERE ALLOWED TO MARRY!

Contrary to prop8 proponent opinions "because we said so" classifies neither as "logic" nor "reason.

oh now, we cant say that until after the supreme court rules.

im pretty sure that whichever justices vote that it is constitutional will have THAT at the center of their ruling.

[Ashas Favor]

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

what makes you think that only christians oppose gay marriage?

i dont think you can find a judge who wouldnt be in some category of group that either pro or anti gay marriage.

all that matters is that the judge rules on the LAW.

Lets talk about Perception.

Put three people in a room, one homosexual, one Christian, and a married (to an opposite sex partner) person who has no religious affiliation. Begin a debate about homosexual marriage. I can almost guarantee you that the Homosexual and the Christian will not get along and will have completely differing views. That leaves us with the married man who can not rule based on religion because he does not believe in it. He would not be persuaded to rule "for" the homosexual's side of the argument because he could probably care less. All that leaves is the LAW to interpret and rule from. He has no clear perception of bias, he has to rule based on what the constitution says. He can be misunderstood to rule on how he "feels" about the topic at hand.

[Ashmoria]

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

what makes you think that only christians oppose gay marriage?

i dont think you can find a judge who wouldnt be in some category of group that either pro or anti gay marriage.

all that matters is that the judge rules on the LAW.

Lets talk about Perception.

Put three people in a room, one homosexual, one Christian, and a married (to an opposite sex partner) person who has no religious affiliation. Begin a debate about homosexual marriage. I can almost guarantee you that the Homosexual and the Christian will not get along and will have completely differing views. That leaves us with the married man who can not rule based on religion because he does not believe in it. He would not be persuaded to rule "for" the homosexual's side of the argument because he could probably care less. All that leaves is the LAW to interpret and rule from.

perception is NOTHING.

all that matters is whether or not the judge is ruling based on law.

after all you have given 3 different people all of whom could completely overlap. the gay guy could be christian, the christian could be het. married, the het married guy could be gay. they each could be all 3 or any combination.

and bad rulings come just as often from a judge with no perceived bias. not that "gay" is automatically biased in a case like this. plenty of gay men have worked hard against gay rights in the US congress.

[Muravyets]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

It'll look bad and....em....something. That'll lead to another Bush, I think.

Kind of what he said. I do not care about there being a gay judge, so try as you might to make me out to be an inhumane ass...but I am ok with his sexual orientation. It is not my cup of tea, but he is free to be whatever he wants.

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

The idea that I must somehow prove that Judge Walker was biased in his decision is purely left up to speculation and opinion on both sides of the fence. Even for those of us in the middle, who have chosen not to pick a side in the fight yet clearly understand that the impression of bias is evident in this situation whether we all see it or not.

Also, Back onto my statement of being careful who is given a case to prevent the perception of bias. Should a "black" judge be given authority to rule over a civil rights case? The answer is situational. If said Judge is known to have a personal bias or "opinion" on the topic of ruling...no. If you can prove (which is the key word) that he can be impartial (ie: he has no dog in the fight unlike Judge Walker in this situation) then sure. Same goes for gun laws and judges that hunt, religious rights and judges whom are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc.

You are correct that I do not want to see another George Bush put in office. However, if stuff like this keeps happening (ie: perception of bias in a very important and groundbreaking court case) the looney tooned right wing will vote Congress back to Republican and Sarah Palin will own the Whitehouse.

*reads* Nope, sorry, that's still a bunch a crap. There is no appearance of bias in the judge's ruling because the judge clearly laid out the legal basis of his decision. No, there is no "situational" case to be made for saying a black judge is not fit to judge a civil rights case. There is no argument along such lines that is not dependent on racist (or other bigoted, depending on the details) assumptions, so if you're going to keep insisting you're not bigoted, you might want to reexamine your decision to take that approach. And your lame attempt at fear-mongering with the suggestion that those who opposed the Bush admin should now throw gays under the bus as a sacrifice to the vicious bigotry of homophobes in order to prevent another Bush from ever happening is...well...funny.

But it's not a good argument.

[Ashas Favor]

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

what makes you think that only christians oppose gay marriage?

i dont think you can find a judge who wouldnt be in some category of group that either pro or anti gay marriage.

all that matters is that the judge rules on the LAW.

Lets talk about Perception.

Put three people in a room, one homosexual, one Christian, and a married (to an opposite sex partner) person who has no religious affiliation. Begin a debate about homosexual marriage. I can almost guarantee you that the Homosexual and the Christian will not get along and will have completely differing views. That leaves us with the married man who can not rule based on religion because he does not believe in it. He would not be persuaded to rule "for" the homosexual's side of the argument because he could probably care less. All that leaves is the LAW to interpret and rule from.

perception is NOTHING.

all that matters is whether or not the judge is ruling based on law.

after all you have given 3 different people all of whom could completely overlap. the gay guy could be christian, the christian could be het. married, the het married guy could be gay. they each could be all 3 or any combination.

and bad rulings come just as often from a judge with no perceived bias. not that "gay" is automatically biased in a case like this. plenty of gay men have worked hard against gay rights in the US congress.

Perception is everything...

[The Resurgent Dream]

He wasn't asked to rule on whether gay marriage is good or not. He was asked to rule on whether Proposition 8 complied with the Constitution. Judges grant great deference to legislation and every competent judge is capable both of striking down laws which, as a policy matter, they favor and of upholding laws which, as a policy matter, they disfavor. Judges who can't do that are fundamentally unfit and should not hold a position on the bench. There is no evidence at all that Walker is such a judge.

[Ashmoria]

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

what makes you think that only christians oppose gay marriage?

i dont think you can find a judge who wouldnt be in some category of group that either pro or anti gay marriage.

all that matters is that the judge rules on the LAW.

Lets talk about Perception.

Put three people in a room, one homosexual, one Christian, and a married (to an opposite sex partner) person who has no religious affiliation. Begin a debate about homosexual marriage. I can almost guarantee you that the Homosexual and the Christian will not get along and will have completely differing views. That leaves us with the married man who can not rule based on religion because he does not believe in it. He would not be persuaded to rule "for" the homosexual's side of the argument because he could probably care less. All that leaves is the LAW to interpret and rule from.

perception is NOTHING.

all that matters is whether or not the judge is ruling based on law.

after all you have given 3 different people all of whom could completely overlap. the gay guy could be christian, the christian could be het. married, the het married guy could be gay. they each could be all 3 or any combination.

and bad rulings come just as often from a judge with no perceived bias. not that "gay" is automatically biased in a case like this. plenty of gay men have worked hard against gay rights in the US congress.

Perception is everything...

the constitution is everything. (if anything is everything)

[Muravyets]

Perception is everything...

To those who have no facts, or prefer not to use them.

When reality isn't what you want, go with what you think you can make it look like if you twist it around enough, turn the lights down low, and squint.

[Ashas Favor]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

It'll look bad and....em....something. That'll lead to another Bush, I think.

Kind of what he said. I do not care about there being a gay judge, so try as you might to make me out to be an inhumane ass...but I am ok with his sexual orientation. It is not my cup of tea, but he is free to be whatever he wants.

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

The idea that I must somehow prove that Judge Walker was biased in his decision is purely left up to speculation and opinion on both sides of the fence. Even for those of us in the middle, who have chosen not to pick a side in the fight yet clearly understand that the impression of bias is evident in this situation whether we all see it or not.

Also, Back onto my statement of being careful who is given a case to prevent the perception of bias. Should a "black" judge be given authority to rule over a civil rights case? The answer is situational. If said Judge is known to have a personal bias or "opinion" on the topic of ruling...no. If you can prove (which is the key word) that he can be impartial (ie: he has no dog in the fight unlike Judge Walker in this situation) then sure. Same goes for gun laws and judges that hunt, religious rights and judges whom are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc.

You are correct that I do not want to see another George Bush put in office. However, if stuff like this keeps happening (ie: perception of bias in a very important and groundbreaking court case) the looney tooned right wing will vote Congress back to Republican and Sarah Palin will own the Whitehouse.

*reads* Nope, sorry, that's still a bunch a crap. There is no appearance of bias in the judge's ruling because the judge clearly laid out the legal basis of his decision. No, there is no "situational" case to be made for saying a black judge is not fit to judge a civil rights case. There is no argument along such lines that is not dependent on racist (or other bigoted, depending on the details) assumptions, so if you're going to keep insisting you're not bigoted, you might want to reexamine your decision to take that approach. And your lame attempt at fear-mongering with the suggestion that those who opposed the Bush admin should now throw gays under the bus as a sacrifice to the vicious bigotry of homophobes in order to prevent another Bush from ever happening is...well...funny.

But it's not a good argument.

You are the one who seems to be placing words in my mouth. I never asked that gays be "thrown under the bus" or "sacrificed". So stop with the defensive "Oh, no...he said something negative about a gay court case so he must be a homophobe" crap. It is tiring and old. I have no problem with who you lay down with at night. Also, your pathetic attempt to label me as racist is incredibly misguided and just plain stupid. If you, a Judge (Black, White, Asian, Arab, etc.), anyone has something to gain or lose from a verdict or decision on a court case...you should not be allowed to rule and should not have authority over said case.

Take your race card and shove it.

[The Resurgent Dream]

You are the one who seems to be placing words in my mouth. I never asked that gays be "thrown under the bus" or "sacrificed". So stop with the defensive "Oh, no...he said something negative about a gay court case so he must be a homophobe" crap. It is tiring and old. I have no problem with who you lay down with at night. Also, your pathetic attempt to label me as racist is incredibly misguided and just plain stupid. If you, a Judge (Black, White, Asian, Arab, etc.), anyone has something to gain or lose from a verdict or decision on a court case...you should not be allowed to rule and should not have authority over said case.

Take your race card and shove it.

Because your argument is so silly on its face and refers in such hysterical and apocalyptic terms to the way the judicial process functions every day in thousands of cases that it's hard to believe it isn't merely pretextual.

[Muravyets]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

It'll look bad and....em....something. That'll lead to another Bush, I think.

Kind of what he said. I do not care about there being a gay judge, so try as you might to make me out to be an inhumane ass...but I am ok with his sexual orientation. It is not my cup of tea, but he is free to be whatever he wants.

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

The idea that I must somehow prove that Judge Walker was biased in his decision is purely left up to speculation and opinion on both sides of the fence. Even for those of us in the middle, who have chosen not to pick a side in the fight yet clearly understand that the impression of bias is evident in this situation whether we all see it or not.

Also, Back onto my statement of being careful who is given a case to prevent the perception of bias. Should a "black" judge be given authority to rule over a civil rights case? The answer is situational. If said Judge is known to have a personal bias or "opinion" on the topic of ruling...no. If you can prove (which is the key word) that he can be impartial (ie: he has no dog in the fight unlike Judge Walker in this situation) then sure. Same goes for gun laws and judges that hunt, religious rights and judges whom are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc.

You are correct that I do not want to see another George Bush put in office. However, if stuff like this keeps happening (ie: perception of bias in a very important and groundbreaking court case) the looney tooned right wing will vote Congress back to Republican and Sarah Palin will own the Whitehouse.

*reads* Nope, sorry, that's still a bunch a crap. There is no appearance of bias in the judge's ruling because the judge clearly laid out the legal basis of his decision. No, there is no "situational" case to be made for saying a black judge is not fit to judge a civil rights case. There is no argument along such lines that is not dependent on racist (or other bigoted, depending on the details) assumptions, so if you're going to keep insisting you're not bigoted, you might want to reexamine your decision to take that approach. And your lame attempt at fear-mongering with the suggestion that those who opposed the Bush admin should now throw gays under the bus as a sacrifice to the vicious bigotry of homophobes in order to prevent another Bush from ever happening is...well...funny.

But it's not a good argument.

You are the one who seems to be placing words in my mouth. I never asked that gays be "thrown under the bus" or "sacrificed". So stop with the defensive "Oh, no...he said something negative about a gay court case so he must be a homophobe" crap. It is tiring and old. I have no problem with who you lay down with at night. Also, your pathetic attempt to label me as racist is incredibly misguided and just plain stupid. If you, a Judge (Black, White, Asian, Arab, etc.), anyone has something to gain or lose from a verdict or decision on a court case...you should not be allowed to rule and should not have authority over said case.

Take your race card and shove it.

I stand by my assessment of your argument, especially in the light of your response above. Also, I'm allowed to use my own words to characterize the effect of your argument on reality. I in no way attributed those specific words to you. Further I did NOT label you racist. I said your argument is dependent on racist/bigoted assumptions and a person who is not a bigot should avoid making that particular argument.

It seems you're the one claiming that the other person said something they didn't, not me.

[Ashas Favor]

You are the one who seems to be placing words in my mouth. I never asked that gays be "thrown under the bus" or "sacrificed". So stop with the defensive "Oh, no...he said something negative about a gay court case so he must be a homophobe" crap. It is tiring and old. I have no problem with who you lay down with at night. Also, your pathetic attempt to label me as racist is incredibly misguided and just plain stupid. If you, a Judge (Black, White, Asian, Arab, etc.), anyone has something to gain or lose from a verdict or decision on a court case...you should not be allowed to rule and should not have authority over said case.

Take your race card and shove it.

Because your argument is so silly on its face and refers in such hysterical and apocalyptic terms to the way the judicial process functions every day in thousands of cases that it's hard to believe it isn't merely pretextual.

I imagine it would be silly to a leftist...one thats moral compass is nonexistent.

[Ashas Favor]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

It'll look bad and....em....something. That'll lead to another Bush, I think.

Kind of what he said. I do not care about there being a gay judge, so try as you might to make me out to be an inhumane ass...but I am ok with his sexual orientation. It is not my cup of tea, but he is free to be whatever he wants.

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

The idea that I must somehow prove that Judge Walker was biased in his decision is purely left up to speculation and opinion on both sides of the fence. Even for those of us in the middle, who have chosen not to pick a side in the fight yet clearly understand that the impression of bias is evident in this situation whether we all see it or not.

Also, Back onto my statement of being careful who is given a case to prevent the perception of bias. Should a "black" judge be given authority to rule over a civil rights case? The answer is situational. If said Judge is known to have a personal bias or "opinion" on the topic of ruling...no. If you can prove (which is the key word) that he can be impartial (ie: he has no dog in the fight unlike Judge Walker in this situation) then sure. Same goes for gun laws and judges that hunt, religious rights and judges whom are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc.

You are correct that I do not want to see another George Bush put in office. However, if stuff like this keeps happening (ie: perception of bias in a very important and groundbreaking court case) the looney tooned right wing will vote Congress back to Republican and Sarah Palin will own the Whitehouse.

*reads* Nope, sorry, that's still a bunch a crap. There is no appearance of bias in the judge's ruling because the judge clearly laid out the legal basis of his decision. No, there is no "situational" case to be made for saying a black judge is not fit to judge a civil rights case. There is no argument along such lines that is not dependent on racist (or other bigoted, depending on the details) assumptions, so if you're going to keep insisting you're not bigoted, you might want to reexamine your decision to take that approach. And your lame attempt at fear-mongering with the suggestion that those who opposed the Bush admin should now throw gays under the bus as a sacrifice to the vicious bigotry of homophobes in order to prevent another Bush from ever happening is...well...funny.

But it's not a good argument.

You are the one who seems to be placing words in my mouth. I never asked that gays be "thrown under the bus" or "sacrificed". So stop with the defensive "Oh, no...he said something negative about a gay court case so he must be a homophobe" crap. It is tiring and old. I have no problem with who you lay down with at night. Also, your pathetic attempt to label me as racist is incredibly misguided and just plain stupid. If you, a Judge (Black, White, Asian, Arab, etc.), anyone has something to gain or lose from a verdict or decision on a court case...you should not be allowed to rule and should not have authority over said case.

Take your race card and shove it.

I stand by my assessment of your argument, especially in the light of your response above. Also, I'm allowed to use my own words to characterize the effect of your argument on reality. I in no way attributed those specific words to you. Further I did NOT label you racist. I said your argument is dependent on racist/bigoted assumptions and a person who is not a bigot should avoid making that particular argument.

It seems you're the one claiming that the other person said something they didn't, not me.

No matter how wrong or misguided they are? I gotcha.

[The Rich Port]

You are the one who seems to be placing words in my mouth. I never asked that gays be "thrown under the bus" or "sacrificed". So stop with the defensive "Oh, no...he said something negative about a gay court case so he must be a homophobe" crap. It is tiring and old. I have no problem with who you lay down with at night. Also, your pathetic attempt to label me as racist is incredibly misguided and just plain stupid. If you, a Judge (Black, White, Asian, Arab, etc.), anyone has something to gain or lose from a verdict or decision on a court case...you should not be allowed to rule and should not have authority over said case.

Take your race card and shove it.

Because your argument is so silly on its face and refers in such hysterical and apocalyptic terms to the way the judicial process functions every day in thousands of cases that it's hard to believe it isn't merely pretextual.

I imagine it would be silly to a leftist...one thats morale compass is nonexistent.

MORALITY. It's written, pronounced, and spoke as MORALITY compass. GET IT RIGHT. Why does everone keep saying "morale"? That's a term reserved for armies, fer Crissakes...

[Muravyets]

You are the one who seems to be placing words in my mouth. I never asked that gays be "thrown under the bus" or "sacrificed". So stop with the defensive "Oh, no...he said something negative about a gay court case so he must be a homophobe" crap. It is tiring and old. I have no problem with who you lay down with at night. Also, your pathetic attempt to label me as racist is incredibly misguided and just plain stupid. If you, a Judge (Black, White, Asian, Arab, etc.), anyone has something to gain or lose from a verdict or decision on a court case...you should not be allowed to rule and should not have authority over said case.

Take your race card and shove it.

Because your argument is so silly on its face and refers in such hysterical and apocalyptic terms to the way the judicial process functions every day in thousands of cases that it's hard to believe it isn't merely pretextual.

I imagine it would be silly to a leftist...one thats morale compass is nonexistent.

And when you've got nowhere left to run, you can always turn to flaming and demonizing your opposition. Have you got any other tricks, or is this your whole repertoire? I ask because the "lefty...morale [sic] compass is nonexistent" trope usually doesn't come out till the end of the opera.

By the way, pro-tip: You wanted to insult us by claiming our moral compass is nonexistent, not our morale compass. The first would allow you to paint us as evil degenerates out to destroy society, while the second merely suggests we are sad, which is quite likely as debating persistent nonsense like yours can get to be a bummer after a while.

EDIT: By the way, smooth edit. Good thing the original survives in quotes.

[Muravyets]

And yet you can't fathom a homosexual judge being objective?

No no, he's not saying that Judge Walker wasn't objective. Just that some people might think he was, and that's just as bad. Yup. A few morons with uninformed notions of bias is just as bad as a judge perverting the course of justice.

I haven't fully caught up yet, but one thing I don't understand is precisely what he thinks is going to happen if said uninformed idiots out there in Idiotland decide they can't trust the legal system 'cause it's too ghey. Will they sue each other less? Commit less crime?

It'll look bad and....em....something. That'll lead to another Bush, I think.

Kind of what he said. I do not care about there being a gay judge, so try as you might to make me out to be an inhumane ass...but I am ok with his sexual orientation. It is not my cup of tea, but he is free to be whatever he wants.

Also, I do think that a case that presents the impression of bias should be ruled on carefully by someone who can not be seen as having a "dog in the fight". (ie: a NonChristian, NonHomosexual ruling on this case). That is all I have asked for in this situation is impartiality.

The idea that I must somehow prove that Judge Walker was biased in his decision is purely left up to speculation and opinion on both sides of the fence. Even for those of us in the middle, who have chosen not to pick a side in the fight yet clearly understand that the impression of bias is evident in this situation whether we all see it or not.

Also, Back onto my statement of being careful who is given a case to prevent the perception of bias. Should a "black" judge be given authority to rule over a civil rights case? The answer is situational. If said Judge is known to have a personal bias or "opinion" on the topic of ruling...no. If you can prove (which is the key word) that he can be impartial (ie: he has no dog in the fight unlike Judge Walker in this situation) then sure. Same goes for gun laws and judges that hunt, religious rights and judges whom are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc.

You are correct that I do not want to see another George Bush put in office. However, if stuff like this keeps happening (ie: perception of bias in a very important and groundbreaking court case) the looney tooned right wing will vote Congress back to Republican and Sarah Palin will own the Whitehouse.

*reads* Nope, sorry, that's still a bunch a crap. There is no appearance of bias in the judge's ruling because the judge clearly laid out the legal basis of his decision. No, there is no "situational" case to be made for saying a black judge is not fit to judge a civil rights case. There is no argument along such lines that is not dependent on racist (or other bigoted, depending on the details) assumptions, so if you're going to keep insisting you're not bigoted, you might want to reexamine your decision to take that approach. And your lame attempt at fear-mongering with the suggestion that those who opposed the Bush admin should now throw gays under the bus as a sacrifice to the vicious bigotry of homophobes in order to prevent another Bush from ever happening is...well...funny.

But it's not a good argument.

You are the one who seems to be placing words in my mouth. I never asked that gays be "thrown under the bus" or "sacrificed". So stop with the defensive "Oh, no...he said something negative about a gay court case so he must be a homophobe" crap. It is tiring and old. I have no problem with who you lay down with at night. Also, your pathetic attempt to label me as racist is incredibly misguided and just plain stupid. If you, a Judge (Black, White, Asian, Arab, etc.), anyone has something to gain or lose from a verdict or decision on a court case...you should not be allowed to rule and should not have authority over said case.

Take your race card and shove it.

I stand by my assessment of your argument, especially in the light of your response above. Also, I'm allowed to use my own words to characterize the effect of your argument on reality. I in no way attributed those specific words to you. Further I did NOT label you racist. I said your argument is dependent on racist/bigoted assumptions and a person who is not a bigot should avoid making that particular argument.

It seems you're the one claiming that the other person said something they didn't, not me.

No matter how wrong or misguided they are? I gotcha.

This sentence ^^ bears no relation to anything in the rest of the quote nest. Did you mean to address this to someone else?

[Copiosa Scotia]

If Chief Judge Walker's "interest," as remote as it is, is sufficient reason for him not to have heard the case, I imagine we'll have trouble finding any judges qualified to hear controversial or highly politicized cases. It seems all Ashas Favor would really require in order to have a judge taken off a case is some reason to believe the judge might have an opinion.

[Ifreann]

But if a straight Hindu judge ruled the exact same way, the loony right wing would vote Obama back in.

If a straight Hindu judge ruled the same way...there would be absolutely no perception of bias and I would not be causing a ruckus on a liberal majority sight. I would still be living in my cave out in Arizona...:-P

So you are the doom and destruction that befalls us if there's some vague perception of bias? Oh noes.

You are hands down the best troll I have ever had the privilege to post alongside. Seriously lol.

I'm a troll because I don't heed your warnings of impending doom?

---

Lets talk about Perception.

Put three people in a room, one homosexual, one Christian, and a married (to an opposite sex partner) person who has no religious affiliation. Begin a debate about homosexual marriage. I can almost guarantee you that the Homosexual and the Christian will not get along and will have completely differing views. That leaves us with the married man who can not rule based on religion because he does not believe in it. He would not be persuaded to rule "for" the homosexual's side of the argument because he could probably care less.

Completely false assumption. Plenty of straight people support gay marriage, despite not being gay. You see, sometimes people value equality, even when their life wouldn't actually change one way or the other. Isn't that strange?

All that leaves is the LAW to interpret and rule from. He has no clear perception of bias, he has to rule based on what the constitution says. He can be misunderstood to rule on how he "feels" about the topic at hand.

But gays and Christians are inherently untrustworthy, because some people think they might be. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

---

Perception is everything...

This isn't one of those times where you can make something true by repeating it enough.

---

MORALITY. It's written, pronounced, and spoke as MORALITY compass. GET IT RIGHT. Why does everone keep saying "morale"? That's a term reserved for armies, fer Crissakes...

It's a 'moral compass', not a morality compass.

[Ryadn]

You are the one who seems to be placing words in my mouth. I never asked that gays be "thrown under the bus" or "sacrificed". So stop with the defensive "Oh, no...he said something negative about a gay court case so he must be a homophobe" crap. It is tiring and old. I have no problem with who you lay down with at night. Also, your pathetic attempt to label me as racist is incredibly misguided and just plain stupid. If you, a Judge (Black, White, Asian, Arab, etc.), anyone has something to gain or lose from a verdict or decision on a court case...you should not be allowed to rule and should not have authority over said case.

Take your race card and shove it.

Because your argument is so silly on its face and refers in such hysterical and apocalyptic terms to the way the judicial process functions every day in thousands of cases that it's hard to believe it isn't merely pretextual.

I imagine it would be silly to a leftist...one thats moral compass is nonexistent.

Thank you for finally coming out and revealing your real argument. We didn't need all those pages of pointless banter.