Ex-judge predicts "spectacular" argum...

Ex-judge predicts "spectacular" argument against Prop. 8

There are 183 comments on the blog.sfgate.com story from Mar 23, 2013, titled Ex-judge predicts "spectacular" argument against Prop. 8. In it, blog.sfgate.com reports that:

The now-retired federal judge who struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage has caused a bit of a stir in an e-mail exchange, leaked to a conservative blogger, in which he predicts the lawyer advocating gay marriage rights will present a "spectacular" argument to the Supreme Court.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at blog.sfgate.com.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21 Mar 24, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
I have always thought that when the meaning of a federal statute is unclear, that the SCOTUS justices should examine the records of congress to determine what they meant. But from what I have read over the years, the SCOTUS justices never do that either.
Those COULD be entered into the record by the litigators, but THEY never do.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#22 Mar 24, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I certainly don't expect anything "spectacular". What i expect are sound, logical legal arguments firmly grounded in federal constitutional law. Nothing more and nothing less.
I certainly do.

I would love to be present. It's the legal Olympics with the finest legal minds of a generation arguing an historic case!

Who wouldn't ?!?!?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24 Mar 24, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
Let's just walk right in to the "activist judge" label, shall we?
AND all the "bias" accusations!

(SHEESH!)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25 Mar 24, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, my. I am so sad to agree, so much for separation of religion and state.
If up to those tools, we would be a big ol' theocracy.
TheoNOMY

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#26 Mar 24, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, my. I am so sad to agree, so much for separation of religion and state.
If up to those tools, we would be a big ol' theocracy.
Since teh head of teh Roman Catholic Church IS also a Head of State, AND Head Of Government, i.e. the leader of a completely sovereign foreign nation, wouldn't it therefore be prudent to bar Roman Catholics from being SCOTUS justices ? How can one serve two masters ?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#27 Mar 24, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I certainly do.
I would love to be present. It's the legal Olympics with the finest legal minds of a generation arguing an historic case!
Who wouldn't ?!?!?
That's what some people said at the time Boweres v. Hardwicke was argued. And look how that turend out.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#28 Mar 24, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since teh head of teh Roman Catholic Church IS also a Head of State, AND Head Of Government, i.e. the leader of a completely sovereign foreign nation, wouldn't it therefore be prudent to bar Roman Catholics from being SCOTUS justices ? How can one serve two masters ?
Weren't you the one who asked the other day why Biden was sent to Rome for the installation ceremony? You have just answered your own question.....the Pope is the head of a sovereign state.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#29 Mar 24, 2013
Of course it's going to be a spectacular argument, it's going to have to be. Fortunately we got ourselves lawyers capable of making one. They don't want to just take down California's amendment, they're aiming for them all and is likely to get them. Whether that is going to come with the right to marry is still up in the air, but the amendments themselves are about to get what's coming to them.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30 Mar 24, 2013
Win or lose, it will be THE case of the new century!

I do SO wish I could be there.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#31 Mar 24, 2013
from the article, "Conservative commentator Ed Whelan went a step further in National Review Online, saying Walker’s “partisan cheerleading” would come as no surprise to anyone who had followed his “outlandishly biased” handling of the Prop. 8 case."

Such bullshit. If they claimed Judge Walker sprouted wings and flew around the courtroom during testimony, there are idiots out there that would believe it.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#32 Mar 24, 2013
eJohn wrote:
from the article, "Conservative commentator Ed Whelan went a step further in National Review Online, saying Walker’s “partisan cheerleading” would come as no surprise to anyone who had followed his “outlandishly biased” handling of the Prop. 8 case."
Such bullshit. If they claimed Judge Walker sprouted wings and flew around the courtroom during testimony, there are idiots out there that would believe it.
Walker was SO biased that he actually insisted that each side provide evidence and witnesses to testify to prove their claims! Imagine that!

That's just so unfair -- everyone KNOWS that civil marriage should be only between a man and a woman because, well because... because it just should!

No evidence is required for the "traditional marriage" argument. Rational discourse is inherently biased against it.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#33 Mar 24, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know how the e-mails got into the hands of people who will grasp at any straw to sully Judge Walker's reputation. But it appears to me he intended to do EXACTLY what you have suggested: keep a low profile regarding the case.
Like it or not, and intended or not, his objectivity is now in question. Agreed, he would have done better to keep a low profile, but the simple, and perhaps regrettable fact is, he didn't. Any negative consequence is not just grasping at straws.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#34 Mar 24, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Walker was SO biased that he actually insisted that each side provide evidence and witnesses to testify to prove their claims! Imagine that!
That's just so unfair -- everyone KNOWS that civil marriage should be only between a man and a woman because, well because... because it just should!
No evidence is required for the "traditional marriage" argument. Rational discourse is inherently biased against it.
Demanding evidence puts conservatives generally--and religious conservatives especially--at a distinct disadvantage. That is why evidence should be outlawed from courtrooms, and science should be outlawed from public schools.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#35 Mar 24, 2013
eJohn wrote:
from the article, "Conservative commentator Ed Whelan went a step further in National Review Online, saying Walker’s “partisan cheerleading” would come as no surprise to anyone who had followed his “outlandishly biased” handling of the Prop. 8 case."
Such bullshit. If they claimed Judge Walker sprouted wings and flew around the courtroom during testimony, there are idiots out there that would believe it.
The hyperbole of "outlandishly biased..." is, as you described, bullshit. Although I have not read the cited emails, there may be something to be said for "partisan cheerleading." Now that he has retired, he has the right to express any opinion he wants. But it does raise the question of a biased decision. I'm not prepared to go along with that claim, but it's unfortunate that it is now a valid question. And the timing kinda sucks, too. I'd rather it just be a matter of law. That's SCOTUS's job and I hope they do it properly.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#36 Mar 24, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> The hyperbole of "outlandishly biased..." is, as you described, bullshit. Although I have not read the cited emails, there may be something to be said for "partisan cheerleading." Now that he has retired, he has the right to express any opinion he wants. But it does raise the question of a biased decision. I'm not prepared to go along with that claim, but it's unfortunate that it is now a valid question. And the timing kinda sucks, too. I'd rather it just be a matter of law. That's SCOTUS's job and I hope they do it properly.
If it's a valid question, then all one needs to do is go to Walker's written decision and cite the specific conclusions, either as to law or fact, that demonstrate his bias. His opinion has been published for all to read and dissect. Nothing is hidden.

The logic behind the claim that Walker is biased simply because he is gay and might "benefit" from the decision would apply to a straight judge, too. After all, the Prop 8 defendants argued that society generally and opposite-sex couples and their marriages specifically benefit from keeping same-sex couples from marrying. A heterosexual judge would presumably "benefit" under that scenario, too. If he wouldn't, then what would be the point of keeping same-sex couples from marrying?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#37 Mar 24, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's a valid question, then all one needs to do is go to Walker's written decision and cite the specific conclusions, either as to law or fact, that demonstrate his bias. His opinion has been published for all to read and dissect. Nothing is hidden.
The logic behind the claim that Walker is biased simply because he is gay and might "benefit" from the decision would apply to a straight judge, too. After all, the Prop 8 defendants argued that society generally and opposite-sex couples and their marriages specifically benefit from keeping same-sex couples from marrying. A heterosexual judge would presumably "benefit" under that scenario, too. If he wouldn't, then what would be the point of keeping same-sex couples from marrying?
The whole argument that opposite-sex marriage would be impacted by same-sex marriage is a fallacious sham. Same-sex marriage has no impact on opposite-sex marriage. The Prop 8 defenders were unable to prove any such claim. In fact, one of their star witnesses has changed his point of view and is now in favor of same-sex marriage.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#38 Mar 24, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Weren't you the one who asked the other day why Biden was sent to Rome for the installation ceremony? You have just answered your own question.....the Pope is the head of a sovereign state.
But since he is teh Head of a sovereign state ONLY BECAUSE OF RELIGION, he should NOT go, and taxpayers should NOT be footing the bill.

Moreover, this is NOT his job ! His JOB is to preside over the Senate. NOTHING MORE ! Please show me where he was appointed "amabassador-at-large ".

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#39 Mar 24, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Weren't you the one who asked the other day why Biden was sent to Rome for the installation ceremony? You have just answered your own question.....the Pope is the head of a sovereign state.
And care to answer Post #26 ?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40 Mar 24, 2013
TOPIX need a "judge it" icon for "dripping irony".

A dripping iron would work.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#41 Mar 24, 2013
Forget the "spectacular". How about we all just hope and pray that ALL OF Prop 8 is ruled totally unconstituional by a majority of teh SCOTUS Justices ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 6 min June VanDerMark 13,022
News Tanzania to publish 'list of gay people' 25 min Gotcha 2
News Tupelo mother, son featured on LGBT video 46 min Imprtnrd 15
News Suffolk bishop says rejection of controversial ... 47 min Rainbow Kid 1
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 1 hr PayupSucka 43
News Duke freshman says Jesus forbids him from readi... (Aug '15) 1 hr blue devil 70
News Scott Lively Calls On Trump To Ban Gays From In... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 3
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Just Think 24,713
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr River Tam 44,894
More from around the web