The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification… Further, it is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Judgment on the sole ground of Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship is DENIED.–Judge Ware wrote in his denial to vacate Judge Walker’s Prop 8 decision simply because he is gay and in a long-term same-sex relationship.
ron
This was a no brainer.
cybernoelie
This is actually a great ruling and well worth going through the hassle for. Judge Ware has quoted numerous cases of minorities fighting for civil rights and tied them directly to gay issues, if anything this ruling will make it exponentially more certain that Prop 8 will ultimately fail.
Joe
I’m so glad this went right. Its such a clear example of how the majority can make it self invisible. When you hear gender, you think women, race;black, sexuality;gay… As if those categories only really exist for the minority and the majority is just “normal.” A case on sexuality, race, gender… would be a conflict of interest for any judge because they all possess a sexuality, a race, and a gender- whether it be straight white male, or furry-pansexual indian/arab trans-woman. Congrads to the sensible judge in this case who upheld Walker’s ruling!
christopher di spirito
Splendid news! I tell ya,’ these homo-haters will stoop to anything.
B
No. 3 · Joe wrote, “Congrads to the sensible judge in this case who upheld Walker’s ruling!”
… Judge Ware did not really uphold Judge Walker’s ruling – the issue was whether Judge Walker should have handled this case at all and Judge Ware ruled that the attacks on Judge Walker in that regard were baseless. One can believe that Judge Walker did not have a conflict of interest and also believe that his ruling on Proposition Eight should be overturned, and Judge Ware has not stated an opinion on Judge Walker’s ruling one way or the other. It is also possible for a judge to rule that there was a conflict of interest, have a case retried, and end up with a nearly identical ruling to the one that was questioned. Efficiency is not one of our legal system’s strong points.
Kev C
ACME shipment of Fail for Defendant Wile E. Coyote. I hear they’re going to appeal the decision.
Steve
Did the people who wanted to vacate Walker really think this would work? Did they not realize every single judge will always have to deal with the outcomes of any judgment they make? It doesn’t matter what the stakes or their personal preferences and habits are, EVERY JUDGE must deal with his or her decision.
Glad this didn’t pass. Now, can we please just get this to the Supreme Court and face the inevitable legalization of gay marriage already?
caffesilvia
The ruling is correct. It would set too dangerous a precedent to disqualify minority jurists just because their own civil rights are potentially affected.
But I don’t think the motion to vacate was, in any way, frivolous. To the contrary, it presented a genuine legal issue that needed to be ruled on. Appellants’ counsel would have been negligent if they had overlooked it.
If the right at issue were different, I don’t think anyone would doubt the legitimacy of the motion. Say, for example, this was a tax case to decide whether some exotic new investment vehicle was tax-exempt. If Judge Walker had personally invested millions of dollars in these kinds of investments, would it be proper for him to decide the case?
ewe
Sanity for a change.
Pete n SFO
@caffesilvia: Actually, as Judge Ware noted, there is a litany of established litigation that the Yes on 8 people could have reviewed. They simply chose not to because, although they will lose, they are very happy for the denial of equality thru the appeal process; any & every appeal they can think of.
iDavid
These anti gay forces failed to get the memo, repeatedly resent stating, “grow up” and “get a life”. If they had a life they wouldn’t be peeing all over ours. Awesome day for us and the judges wacking the annoying drippy diapered 4 yr olds on their asses and telling them to get out of the house so the adults can have some sanity is Perf.
B
No. 7 · Steve wrote, “Did the people who wanted to vacate Walker really think this would work?”
My guess is that they thought it had a slight chance of working. It wasn’t that Judge Walker is gay – they would have used any excuse. If he were straight and had just gone through a contentious divorce, they would have used that, saying he was prejudiced against marriage due to having a bad experience and wanted to ruin it for everyone else.
The rationale is as follows. There is a probability p that a different judge would rule in their favor (p may be small, but is probably not zero.) So, if the current judge ruled that there had to be a new trial, they get to “throw the dice” again and might get a ruling in their favor. Even if they ultimately lose on appeal, going back to square one pushes back same-sex marriage for a year or two. Given that the Judge Ware ruled against, them, they still get an advantage – a PR one for people funding them, as they’ve set the stage for whining that “activist, left-wing judges” made up the law. So, they tried because they figured that they might get something they’d really like if they won and nothing bad would happen if they lost.
Curiously, Judge Walker, the “left-wing activist judge” emeritus, had trouble getting appointed because some senators thought he was insensitive to gays and the poor – he once represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a lawsuit regarding a group calling themselves “The Gay Olympics” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_Walker ). Walker probably viewed it as trademark-infringement case, not as an attack on gays. But, the religious nuts and other homophobes won’t know about that, so they’ll simply accept the “activist judge” excuse for the “yes on Eight” side’s inept defense in court.
caffesilvia
@Pete n SFO: Eh, that’s just posturing. Courts always do that. It doesn’t mean the issue is black-and-white; it isn’t. There was (as usual) the requisite amount of precedent to justify a ruling either way. The question was whether it would have been a good, responsible thing (for the system and for this case) to disqualify Walker. It wouldn’t have in this case, given the civil rights context. That’s not to say it would turn out the same way if we were talking about a judge who effectively gave himself a different sort of benefit.
caffesilvia
@B: Bingo. ProtectMarriage.com has a practically unlimited litigation budget, so they’ll kitchen-sink this thing the whole way through.
robert in NYC
Take that, NOM! Another defeat for that ugly old cow Mrs. Maggie Srivastava (Gallagher)! Meanwhile, here in NYS, we need just one more vote to pass marriage equality by friday.
Spike
So can we now assume that str8t white males judges are also capable of deciding without bias cases that might benefit str8t white males? Who new?!!?