"Vaughn Walker should have recused himself" - what idiotic horseshit

[ThomWV]

Callers to Cspan are suggesting that Judge Vaughn Walker, the author of California's gay marriage' decision, should have recused himself from hearing the case because he is gay. They suggest that he could not make an unbiased decision in this case which pitted homosexual interests agains heterosexual interests. They imply his homosexual lifestyle would inform his analysis and decision. It does not occur to them that had a heterosexual judge taken his place their prejudices in the opposite direction were equally as likely. You see, in the bigots mind it impossible for a homosexual man to make a good decision on matters the law and marriage, but a heterosexual man, with his opposite instincts would have no problem. What idiotic horseshit.

[warrior1]

1. same would have to be for every straight judge

idiots

[H2O Man]

2. When I used to

box as a young man, I can remember some opponents that I really disliked. And, after a round or so, I'd ask them, "Is that all you got?" The calls you speak of remind me of that: it's all they got.

[Richardo]

3. Plus, the defendants knew this ahead of time and did not move for recusal

Plus, he's a Reagan appointee - so suck on it all around, losers.

[keroro gunsou]

28. actually....

he's a GHW Bush appointee.

[Richardo]

29. Then I was misinformed by NPR.

Still a 'suck it' though.

[The Magistrate]

32. Nominated By Reagan, Sir, But Never Got a Vote, Since We Felt Him Too Conservative

Renominated by Bush Sr., and confirmed on the second pass.

[Richardo]

35. Thank you, milord.

:hi:

[keroro gunsou]

37. agreed.

and beagles up, repigs down.

[CBGLuthier]

4. Sometimes it can take a while to find a flaw in an argument

And then there is this nonsense which can't even pass a simple test of reversal.

I would suggest they use someone entirely sexless but I don't want Karl Rove making the decision. :-)

[Richardo]

9. ..

:rofl:

[Orrex]

5. If the argument has been that Prop 8 seeks to defend "traditional" marriage...

then it seems to me that anyone who has entered into or presided over traditional marriage--or for that matter even known someone who's been part of a traditional marriage--would have to recuse him- or herself. Otherwise, surely that person's association with marriage or married persons would constitute an insoluble conflict of interest, right?

[WillParkinson]

6. He should have recused himself...

Obviously only a heterosexual can judge the merits in this case as they know what's best for everyone.

And when the heterosexual judge found the same conclusions there would be something wrong with that judge.

I call sour grapes.

[activa8tr]

7. All heterosexuals should recuse themselves from being judge in divorce

court matters then.

Same logic.:nopity:

[rocktivity]

11. And that goes double if they're married!

Does that mean that the best judge for Prop 8 would have been a single bisexual hermaphrodite?

Cue the DU "Cry Me A River" String Quartet!

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:
rocktivity

[WinkyDink]

8. The Big Picture, people. It's the Rovian Tactic: "Liberals, gays, and Blacks want to destroy YOUR

country."

Obama is Example #1, of course. But he was elected. So more fuel must be added: this judge, Rangel, Waters, Frank, "Marie Antoinette" Michele, etc.

It worked before.

[rocktivity]

10. That assumes that there's no difference between being non-gay and ANTI-gay

If a gay or pro-gay judge can't be "objective," then a straight or anti-gay judge can't be, either!

:rofl:
rocktivity

[BillStein]

13. But

they have god on their side.

[pipi_k]

15. Well...

I heard that God is gay and that he's mighty pissed off that these fools have twisted his words to suit themselves.

[niyad]

25. a sign I saw at one of the demonstrations after the judge's ruling"

"God loves all Her children, even the straight ones"

[Hepburn]

27. +1...

...and what I say to the Mormon missionaries when they come to my door:

"She is black and beautiful...trust in her..." Watch them back off my porch and fall down the stairs!

:rofl:

[ThomWV]

14. And at the same time assumes there is no different between being gay and anti-straight

I know many straight people who hate gay people, but I don't know a single gay person who hates straight people. As a consequence I would trust a gay person to make a good decision on matters that I would expect a straight person to make a bad decision informed as much by their prejudices as the facts before them. In this case I define a good decision as one informed by the facts of the case rather than the prejudices of the Judge and a bad decision as the opposite of that.

[lunatica]

12. Tiny thoughts from tiny minds

with deep synaptic grooves that make it impossible to do more than react in a knee jerk fashion.

[bullwinkle428]

16. Because that great legal scholar, known as "Michael Savage", was

pushing this theory to his army of flying wingnuts the other day!

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Wow, do we then get to reverse every ruling a straight judge has ever made against a gay?

[TBF]

18. That assumes that ALL heterosexuals are pitted against homosexuals.

Which is not true. As a heterosexual I am not threatened by homosexuals seeking equality, just as intelligent men are not threatened by women seeking equality.

The "callers to CSpan" suggesting such nonsense certainly are bigots, and annoying at that.

[tinrobot]

19. Isn't this more of a religious issue than a gay/straight issue?

The measure was funded by the Mormon church, and argued it on religious grounds in court.

How far would they get if they argued the judge wasn't "Mormon" enough to make the decision?

[rug]

20. He was nominated by GHWBush.

[unblock]

22. reagan, i thought?

[unblock]

23. and black judges should recuse themselves in civil rights/affirmative action cases?

and judges who own guns should recuse themselves in 2nd amendment cases?

and judges who vote should recuse themselves in voting rights cases?

and judges who might ever get sick should recuse themselves from health insurance / medical cases?

and judges who drive should recuse themselves from traffic court?

[rug]

26. He was but it was stalled in committee until GHWB reappointed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker

Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".<3> Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of their opposition.<4>

[Blue State Blues]

21. How dare he rule on human rights ... he is human!

[ladjf]

24. Walker's recusal would have been a tacit agreement that homosexuals

have less civil rights that heterosexuals. nt

[racaulk]

30. *yawn* How incredibly predictable.

If this judge needed to be recused from this case, it seems like those calls should have come from the defendants in the trial and they should have come before the trial even began. For people that have absolutely no "skin in the game," so to speak, to state after the fact that he should have recused himself is nothing more than sour grapes, blustering, and teeth gnashing. But it does make for good political theatre, and it would be more humorous if there weren't human lives and livelihoods at stake.

On the other hand, if Judge Walker had made the opposite decision and declared that Prop 8 were constitutional, these exact same people would have been praising him for his wise jurisprudence and sharp legal mind.

Damn hypocrites, every one of them.

:rant:

[AnArmyVeteran]

31. Then no male should ever make a decision about abortion.

[LynneSin]

33. homophobic assholes should recuse themselves from breathing

nuff said!

[ljm2002]

34. By that logic...

...only an asexual celibate could possibly make an unbiased decision.

[joeybee12]

36. In a way it's good these jackasses are bringing it up...exposes the hate and ignorance

of their arguments.