Tweet
hAD TO LAUGH THAT THIS WRITER GOES ON AND ON ABOUT OH THE MAIN STREAM (OOPS sorry about caps no edit button) media is ignoring story that judge vaughn walker from PROPOSITION H8 is gay...joke is the huffypuffy writer's "own" readers are ignoring the story only 2 count them 2 posts, and 1 is from the writer!
story's here
So good, this issues settled
story's here
So good, this issues settled
Should the Prop 8 Trial Court Opinion Be Vacated?
by Bruce Hausknecht
“Vacated” means, in legal-speak, to render null and void, as if it never existed.
Ed Whelan makes the case over at National Review Online that Judge Vaughn Walker’s recent revelation of his ongoing same-sex relationship of 10 years with a Bay-area doctor easily meets the federal law’s threshold question of whether the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
And as Ed explains, the question is not whether the judge thinks he can remain impartial. The question is whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned “from the perspective of a reasonable person.”
Whelan makes a strong case. It’s not about sexual orientation. Walker stands to gain (at least in his own mind as reflected in the strange “findings of fact” and conclusions contained in his written decision) personally and financially should he “marry” his partner at some point in the future, all made possible by his August 2010 decision. As usual, the mainstream media is totally ignoring this story.
It would be up to the proponents of Prop 8 to now make the request to the 9th Circuit to have Walker disqualified and his opinion thrown out. That would put the Prop 8 litigation back to square one.
Now that just might get some press coverage.
2 Responses to “Should the Prop 8 Trial Court Opinion Be Vacated?”
by Bruce Hausknecht
“Vacated” means, in legal-speak, to render null and void, as if it never existed.
Ed Whelan makes the case over at National Review Online that Judge Vaughn Walker’s recent revelation of his ongoing same-sex relationship of 10 years with a Bay-area doctor easily meets the federal law’s threshold question of whether the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
And as Ed explains, the question is not whether the judge thinks he can remain impartial. The question is whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned “from the perspective of a reasonable person.”
Whelan makes a strong case. It’s not about sexual orientation. Walker stands to gain (at least in his own mind as reflected in the strange “findings of fact” and conclusions contained in his written decision) personally and financially should he “marry” his partner at some point in the future, all made possible by his August 2010 decision. As usual, the mainstream media is totally ignoring this story.
It would be up to the proponents of Prop 8 to now make the request to the 9th Circuit to have Walker disqualified and his opinion thrown out. That would put the Prop 8 litigation back to square one.
Now that just might get some press coverage.
2 Responses to “Should the Prop 8 Trial Court Opinion Be Vacated?”
- April 21, 2011 at 7:49 am, Phil L said:
The other point to note is that he could have married his partner prior to the passing of Prop 8 had he and his partner wanted to do so. That makes the benefits of his ruling (in regards to himself) a bit moot, actually.
Reply
- April 21, 2011 at 9:00 am, Bruce Hausknecht said:
Sorry Phil, but “woulda, coulda” with regard to what Walker could have done doesn’t change a thing. There was only a 4 month “window” where gay marriage was legal in California. Maybe the timing wasn’t right for Walker and his partner back in 2008. At any rate, the test under the federal statute is “what would the reasonable person believe?” Under that test, Walker flunks.
- April 21, 2011 at 9:00 am, Bruce Hausknecht said:
Comment