Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[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.

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

Seriously? You are aware that you're the one making the amoralist argument, aren't you? Judges do recuse themselves when they or their spouses have personal connections with the parties to a case. This can be a financial interest, previous representation of the party, any number of things. However, judges do not recuse themselves when they have a policy preference, something in common with a party, or a speculative future interest in the outcome. They do not do so, not only because the waste of resources involved in shifting judges around to deal with such petty recusals would be enormous, but also because to do so would undermine the foundations of our judiciary. Whatever other biases they may or may not have, all judges have policy preferences. If judges cannot be trusted to separate the law from their own policy preferences, as you suggest, then the basic principles on which our independent judiciary and separation of powers principles are founded are erroneous. Judges do not interpret the law but exercise political power based on policy preferences as surely as the political branches do. Moreover, if your argument is true, they do this because morality is not to be found, judges capable of doing otherwise are not to be found. Even if they are to be found, no one believes in the possibility of moral judges and this is the reason they oppose the ruling.

I'm also curious as to exactly what angry mob who believes the judge is biased you speak for. Although I have heard many people attack the ruling over the past few days, you remain the only person, online, in person, or on Fox News, who I have seen trot out this claim. You speak for yourself alone and pretend to merely be cautioning about some nameless others with whom you claim not even to completely agree.

[Tekania]

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.

As a heterosexual Christian male, I would have to say that put me in that room and I'll rule FOR same-sex marriage.

[The Rich Port]

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

Tell me about it...

[Venetoland]

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.

As a heterosexual Christian male, I would have to say that put me in that room and I'll rule FOR same-sex marriage.

^This

[Ryadn]

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.

Tell me about it...

Please fix the quote tags on your post, so this isn't accidentally attributed to me. :(

[The Rich Port]

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.

Tell me about it...

Please fix the quote tags on your post, so this isn't accidentally attributed to me. :(

Oh, LOL. Fix'd. =D

I don't think you could say something like that, Ryadn. You're just too smart.

[Ryadn]

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.

Tell me about it...

Please fix the quote tags on your post, so this isn't accidentally attributed to me. :(

Oh, LOL. Fix'd. =D

I don't think you could say something like that, Ryadn. You're just too smart.

Stroking my ego will get you everywhere.

[Mirkana]

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.

Tell me about it...

Please fix the quote tags on your post, so this isn't accidentally attributed to me. :(

Oh, LOL. Fix'd. =D

I don't think you could say something like that, Ryadn. You're just too smart.

Stroking my ego will get you everywhere.

You're so hot, you make asexuals tear off their clothes.

[Helertia]

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.

Tell me about it...

Please fix the quote tags on your post, so this isn't accidentally attributed to me. :(

Oh, LOL. Fix'd. =D

I don't think you could say something like that, Ryadn. You're just too smart.

Stroking my ego will get you everywhere.

*Flatters Ryadn* Take me to Barbados!

[The Cat-Tribe]

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.

I have a few serious and straightfoward set of questions that are not meant in anyway to ridicule or diminish your position:

1. Have you ever studied law?

2. Have you ever study judicial process and/or jurisprudential theory?

3. Have you read the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and/or applicable rulings/caselaw?

4. Have you read 28 U.S.C. § 144, 28 U.S.C. § 455, and/or analyzed the relevant caselaw (such as is done in this document (91p pdf)?

5. How do you think judges actually decide cases? Do you really think their personal experiences, ideologies, and politics play no role whatsoever in the outcome of decisions?

6. Do you think Justice Antonin Scalia is usually unbiased in deciding cases? Is Justice Clarence Thomas? Is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

I have a few more pointed questions as well:

1. Why has this case raised your ire, but not the clearer case of potential conflict in the high-profile case of Virginia v. Sebelius, in which Virginia's Attorney General is seeking to have the mandate portion of the recently passed federal health care reform ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In that case, not only is U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson a ultra-conservative Republican, but also he has alleged financial ties to groups opposed to the health care reform AND to Virginia's Attorney General who is bringing the case? See, e.g., Advocacy group calls for recusal of health-care judge over investments; Henry Hudson, Judge In Health Care Lawsuit, Has Financial Ties To Attorney General Bringing The Case.

2. I can rather easily cite studies showing gender bias, racial bias, and heterosexist bias generally in our judicial system, but it is obviously difficult outside exceptional cases to show a particular judge harbors such bias in particular case to such a degree that he or she should be recused. Does this make our entire judicial system invalid? Is the entire process a waste of time?

3. I still don't understand why a judge who may be gay is necessarily biased (or may be reasonably perceived as biased), but a heterosexual judge is not. If you accept almost any of the arguments in favor of Prop. 8, then a heterosexual has an interest in seeing Prop. 8 upheld.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

No. This is the problem with one side in this debate - the side that opposes equality in marriage - it seems to believe that it's okay to make allegations it can't prove, and base legal decisions on personal prejudice. That's not right, and the Constitution says as much.

You make an allegation that the judge must be biased, as a means to undermine the decision. Fine - demonstrate bias. And suspicion won't cut it, so "He MUST be biased, because I'm pretty sure he's gay" is NOT an argument.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

What a load of crap. The idea that hetero-normative relationships somehow absolve one of the possibility of bias is total nonsense. And - while most objections to equality in marriage are based in religion, that doesn't mean that all religious people oppose equality, or that all non-religious people would be okay with it.

Your perception argument is nonsense.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

You disagree, so you obviously have no morals...?

That's seriously your argument?

[Farnhamia]

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.

What a load of crap. The idea that hetero-normative relationships somehow absolve one of the possibility of bias is total nonsense. And - while most objections to equality in marriage are based in religion, that doesn't mean that all religious people oppose equality, or that all non-religious people would be okay with it.

Your perception argument is nonsense.

What's funny is, Judge Walker has been accused of being insensitive toward gays and the poor. This San Francisco Chronicle editorial talks about the judge and his reputation.

[Ifreann]

What's funny is, Judge Walker has been accused of being insensitive toward gays and the poor. This San Francisco Chronicle editorial talks about the judge and his reputation.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Farnhamia]

What's funny is, Judge Walker has been accused of being insensitive toward gays and the poor. This San Francisco Chronicle editorial talks about the judge and his reputation.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So it would seem. Did you notice how they said he was active in Republican politics and that some people thought he showed libertarian leanings? It is to laugh.

[Ryadn]

What's funny is, Judge Walker has been accused of being insensitive toward gays and the poor. This San Francisco Chronicle editorial talks about the judge and his reputation.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So it would seem. Did you notice how they said he was active in Republican politics and that some people thought he showed libertarian leanings? It is to laugh.

I suppose this ruling would be the libertarian one, if libertarians actually acted like libertarians instead of Tea Partiers.

[Unhealthy2]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If everyone thinks you're biased against them, that usually means you're pretty impartial, unless you're gay, apparently.

[Whole Conviction]

What's funny is, Judge Walker has been accused of being insensitive toward gays and the poor. This San Francisco Chronicle editorial talks about the judge and his reputation.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So it would seem. Did you notice how they said he was active in Republican politics and that some people thought he showed libertarian leanings? It is to laugh.

I suppose this ruling would be the libertarian one, if libertarians actually acted like libertarians instead of Tea Partiers.

To be honest, there are a lot of libertarians who do. They just tend to be drowned out by the 'fuck your rights, I only care about my own' types.

[Tekania]

What's funny is, Judge Walker has been accused of being insensitive toward gays and the poor. This San Francisco Chronicle editorial talks about the judge and his reputation.

The article also well points out that Judge Walker has a long proven history of NOT ruling on bias. The transcripts show no actual bias in this case. The assumed bias now is merely because they're pissed that the frantic anti-ssm religious rights absurd ideas could not stand up to our own (US) standards of law and libertym and as such they got their wee-wees slapped.

[North Suran]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If everyone thinks you're biased against them, that usually means you're pretty impartial, unless you're gay, apparently.

Claims of bias are not evidence of bias. That is a self-serving logical fallacy. Roll again.

[Buffett and Colbert]

1. Why has this case raised your ire, but not the clearer case of potential conflict in the high-profile case of Virginia v. Sebelius, in which Virginia's Attorney General is seeking to have the mandate portion of the recently passed federal health care reform ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In that case, not only is U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson a ultra-conservative Republican, but also he has alleged financial ties to groups opposed to the health care reform AND to Virginia's Attorney General who is bringing the case? See, e.g., Advocacy group calls for recusal of health-care judge over investments; Henry Hudson, Judge In Health Care Lawsuit, Has Financial Ties To Attorney General Bringing The Case.

Holy shit.

I know that SCOTUS justices don't participate in a case if there's conflict of interest, but is it the same at this level?

[Maineiacs]

1. Why has this case raised your ire, but not the clearer case of potential conflict in the high-profile case of Virginia v. Sebelius, in which Virginia's Attorney General is seeking to have the mandate portion of the recently passed federal health care reform ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In that case, not only is U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson a ultra-conservative Republican, but also he has alleged financial ties to groups opposed to the health care reform AND to Virginia's Attorney General who is bringing the case? See, e.g., Advocacy group calls for recusal of health-care judge over investments; Henry Hudson, Judge In Health Care Lawsuit, Has Financial Ties To Attorney General Bringing The Case. /quote]
Holy shit.

I know that SCOTUS justices don't participate in a case if there's conflict of interest, but is it the same at this level?

It's supposed to be.

[Bottle]

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.

What a load of crap. The idea that hetero-normative relationships somehow absolve one of the possibility of bias is total nonsense. And - while most objections to equality in marriage are based in religion, that doesn't mean that all religious people oppose equality, or that all non-religious people would be okay with it.

Your perception argument is nonsense.

It's the core principal of the entire system of thought, though.

The system in which the default definition of "person" is "white, heterosexual, male person." White hetero dudes are the "norm," and all other types of people deviate from the norm, and thus everyone who isn't a white hetero dude has a bias that stems from the fact that they are abnormal. Abnormal in the sense of being a non-white non-hetero non-dude, like the majority of human beings on the planet.

[Arborlawn]

I think it's great. Gays should be allowed to marry.

HERESY!!!!!!!