A judge today rejected arguments made by supporters of Prop 8 who challenged that because the original judge in the trial, Judge Vaughn Walker, ruled that Prop 8 was illegal and later came out as gay that he should have recused himself and his ruling set aside.
This trial and this proposition has been going on for a long ass time. What’s next? I admit I haven’t kept up with the details of this trial. Is today’s ruling ONLY to settle the matter of whether or not Walker was a valid judge to rule on the case? Does the case go back to the 9th Circuit now to settle the larger issue of whether or the ruling was legal (I think an appeal was made if the proponents had “standing” to contest) or with this ruling today, it settles the entire matter before the 9th Circuit and only the Supreme Court is left for appeal?
This was just the side issue of whether Walker’s ruling should be vacated on the grounds that he he had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself. As the answer was no, nothing changes.
The case itself is still waiting for appeal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the California Supreme Court about whether, under California law, the backers of Prop 8 alone have standing to appeal the case when the state officials who normally do that sort of thing decline to do so. Right now we are waiting on that ruling (expected in a few months), and if they rule yes to that question, the case will then be heard in the appeals court. If they rule that Prop 8 proponents lack standing, the issue dies there, Prop 8 is overturned, and same-sex marriage becomes legal in California again – but no states outside of California are affected and no precedent is set.
Why would no precedent be set? Walker determined that banning same sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. If the ruling is upheld, wouldn’t that make same sex marriage legal everywhere in the U.S.? If the Prop 8 backers are allowed to appeal, and lose the appeal, then appeal to the Supreme Court and lose there, would that be different?
If the 9th Circuit upholds the ruling (to overturn Prop 8) then it only legalizes SSM in the 9th Circuit (which is CA plus something like NV and AZ). It might cause other circuit courts to fallow suit, but they needn’t do that.
Unless I am mistaken, the ruling under appeal is not whether SSM should be legal but whether Proposition 8 is legal. Obviously, Prop 8 applies only to the State of California.
No - at most, propositions outlawing SSM will be legal throughout the US, which is not the same thing at all (especially since I don’t think all states have propositions)
It’s a HUGE circuit, the largest in the country. There have been (and continue to be) proposals to split it in to at least two separate circuits, but they haven’t come to anything up to this point.
The Supreme Court could rule as narrowly or as widely as they like. They could apply their logic strictly to Proposition 8, and wait for a case from another state to work its way through the courts. Or they could outright say that not recognizing same-sex marriages is in violation of the Equal Protection and/or Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I don’t see how the could rule in such a way that it only legalized SSM in CA. If they chose not to take the case, then it would stay legal in the 9th Circuit only.
I was kind of disappointed to learn that Judge Walker was gay as it seemed to give ‘credence’ to The Other Side about claims of a gay agenda and whathaveyou.
But then I thought about it, and I wondered if gay rights groups would be up in arms if it turned out that Walker was, I donno, a member of a rightwing Christian organization?
Somehow the fact that Walker belongs to a tiny minority of the people he’s ruling on seems…odd. Why not just disclose that?
So my question (and it’s in GD because that’s where it will end up anywho) is:
Would anyone have really expected Walker to recuse himself/disclose that information? Would the gay rights groups (aka the good guys) be up in arms if it was found that he was a member of the AFK or had very conservative viewpoints on this issue?
Is there any ethical precedent here that sticks?
One the one hand, it doesn’t seem right to use someone’s sexual orientation against them. On the other, it seems odd to not notice it. I mean, how many times have I heard pro-choice groups lament, “Oh, if only men could have babies…abortion would be a mandate.”
How is it any more relavent than being straight? Should female judges have to recuse themselves frrom sex discrimination cases? Black judges from racial discrimination?
Every judge is going to belong to a demographic. Their job is to put that aside when they decide a case. A gay judge is no less capable of that than a straight judge.
I didn’t say anything about who is capable. But not all blacks support affirmative action, and not all women support abortion or think that they’re being discriminated against. Conservatives have proved that.
I just feel like 99 per cent of gays support same sex marriage.
And women are half of the electorate, whereas gay men are like 2-3 per cent. When a conservative Republican judge tries a case, the liberals have a cow, right? And aren’t SCOTUS decisions usually analyzed when voted along party lines?
Also: What happens when there’s another SCOTUS seat open? Do we filibuster supposed Evangelical approved anti-abortion judges? Because they’re trusted to rule on matters of the law, not personal religious positions, right?
Let’s say SF’s circumcision ban gets passed and the matter comes before a Jewish judge. Is there going to be speculation about it? Of course! But does this mean Jews can’t judge on these matters? Or should any circumcised male (oh god, this would be funny if this does come up and opponents to circ demand that the judge is a non-Jewish female or something) recuse himself?
Seriously, though, I see this “Judge______, who is Jewish…”, forcing an unnecessary query into the status of one’s foreskin.
