AP Exclusive: Judge's partner cited in Prop 8 case

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban say the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to appeal.

Lawyer Andy Pugno tells The Associated Press on Monday that backers of the voter-approved measure believe that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case because his impartiality could "reasonably" be questioned.

Walker declared Prop 8 to be an unconstitutional violation of gay Californian's civil rights last summer. He retired from the bench in February.

Rumors circulated during the 13-day trial that the judge was gay. Walker confirmed them this month. He said he did not consider his 10-year relationship a reason for recusal.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110425/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

[mzteris]

1. then being a heterosexual could be reason for recusal, too

ijits!

[Newsjock]

2. Which, of course, the AP doesn't even bother to mention

Goddamn corporate media tools.

[Snoutport]

3. game, set, match

:toast:

[Wait Wut]

4. Eggsackly.

It won't stop these fools from being fools, however. They don't see the logic behind the argument.

[AlbertCat]

5. then being a heterosexual could be reason for recusal, too

Yes...

Of course this should only be judged by asexual judges who cannot love another human being.


IOW...Scalia and Thomas. Badda bing!

Has the HAL 9000 gone dysfunctional yet?

Maybe they can get Data to make a ruling!

:eyes:

[HankyDubs]

6. exactly

We have to find a judge with no sexual preference at all to judge this case. Virgins only...and even those would need to be vetted thoroughly to make sure they never even thought about sex.

[Yo_Mama]

10. Exactly

What do we have to do? Have federal judges who are eunuchs to hear these cases?

The first time I ever encountered this argument my jaw hung open.

[alp227]

7. desperate, huh?

under that logic, Hispanic judges should've recused themselves from the SB 1070 case (two of the judges in the recent appeal case were in fact of Hispanic descent - Carlos Bea and Richard Paez - but ruled in separate paths).

my opinion on recusal is only during a direct conflict of interest. that's why justices Sotomayor and Kagan recused themselves from appealed cases they heard as fed judges, for instance. if Walker had been bankrolled by the no on 8 campaign then i could see a justification for him to be non-impartial.

[No Elephants]

8. .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

[AldebTX]

9. They Have Been Grasping for Straws

I still hope that the transcripts are released. The consensus is there are some real jewels in the testimony.

[melm00se]

11. Actually on a hot button issue like this

he would have been better to recuse himself from the get go. By not doing so, he has opened up the door for a challenge not on the merits of the case but rather on the fact that he was a homosexual. This runs the risk of it being overturned.

remember, the perception is reality and if the perception is one of (legal) impropriety then that can easily morph into the reality of impropriety.