[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by HTannor

I had some free time today and hurried down to the Judicial Building. My plan was to enter the judge's private dining room and get to know my fellow brethren.

I was shocked to be barred from entering the room, but left after the guards explained that the elections "hadn't been certified yet".

What a load of garbage, but I supposed a future justice shouldn't be making a scene and bringing disrespect upon the body one will be entering soon.

Oh, I'm so excited and dream of being placed on that august panel. It is nice to be respected. I think you look very distinguished in your photographs.




I can just see myself in my mind's eye..........

oops, I think that might have been wrong

[Benedict A. Davis]

To the office of the Most Honourable Judge Tannor, I have been reading on this growing issue that seems to coming to the fore with other magistrates and I wanted to get a feeling for your stance on this issue.

• Print
• Back to story

Gay Marriage on Appeal: A Look at the Judges

By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER Michael A. Lindenberger Sun Dec 5, 9:35 am ET
The federal case to decide whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to gay marriage takes a new turn Monday, when lawyers on both sides will for the first time make their arguments before more than just judges. The proceedings will be televised on C-SPAN and be seen in live feeds to law schools throughout the country. But those arguments - already spelled out in the parties' court filings and amplified by some 47 friend-of-the-court briefs - will be tailored to just three sets of ears, those belonging to the ideologically diverse panel of appellate judges who will decide whether the case can be appealed, and if so which side should win.
Earlier this year, Chief District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the 2008 ballot initiative that changed California's constitution to ban gay marriage had violated the U.S. Constitution. The backers of the initiative, known as Prop 8, appealed, setting up Monday's showdown before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Watch a gay-marriage wedding video.)
All three judges hearing arguments Monday are white men, but together they present about as wide a range of judicial experience and approach as possible. On one end of the spectrum sits Circuit judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles, appointed to the bench by 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, and widely considered one of the most liberal federal judges now wearing robes. He's also the only judge of the three to have already issued a decision in a case relating to gay marriage. In 2009, he sided with Brad Levenson, a deputy federal public defender who wanted the government to extend insurance benefits to the man Levenson had married the year before, when California law had allowed gay marriage. Citing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, benefits administrators in Washington had refused to do so. In an administrative ruling, Reinhardt ordered the government to pay the benefits, agreeing that application of DOMA in Levenson's case violated the U.S. Constitution. "The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afford them by a state," Reinhardt wrote.
Prop 8 supporters filed papers late Wednesday asking Reinhardt to recuse himself since his wife, a long-time leader of Southern California's ACLU chapter, had worked to defeat the ballot initiative. It's unlikely his wife's activism, however, would require Reinhardt to step aside. Indeed, Reinhardt wasted no time rebuffing the attempt, and issued an order first thing Thursday morning dismissing the motion to disqualify him.
But if Reinhardt's record has likely cheered Theodore Olson and David Boies, the lawyers for the wedding-minded gay couples who sued to overturn Prop 8, the panel's makeup provides plenty of encouragement for the other as well. Sitting beside Reinhardt will be N. Randy Smith, the newest member of the panel. Smith was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2007, after serving since 1995 as a state trial court judge in Idaho, where he is also a member of the Idaho State GOP Hall of Fame. As a state trial judge, Smith is unlikely to have occasion to tip his hand on gay marriage from the bench, but as a lifelong conservative, and two-time graduate of Brigham Young University in Utah, it's likely he will be receptive to arguments put forth by attorney Charles Cooper that Walker overreached in his ruling.
Watch a video on fallout from a gay marriage ban.

Cooper, a former lawyer for the Reagan-era Justice Department, will argue that given the state's natural interest in procreation and child-rearing, it's entirely reasonable that it be allowed to limit marriage to a man and a woman. "Before the recent movement to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships, it was commonly understood and acknowledged that the institution of marriage owed its very existence to society's vital interest in responsible procreation and child rearing," he wrote in a brief filed in advance of the appeal. "Indeed, no other purpose can plausibly explain the ubiquity of the institution."
Senior Circuit Judge Michael Hawkins of Phoenix, the third judge hearing Monday's arguments, is considered a moderate by many, including himself. Nominated by President Clinton in 1994, while serving as U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Hawkins said in a 2003 interview with the How Appealing legal blog: "I think of myself as being entirely moderate in all things, but others might say otherwise." He acknowledged, however, that judges often do reflect the philosophies of the President who nominated them. "It cannot be ignored that judges are often (but not always) something of a mirror of the President who appointed them."
In two of his most watched opinions, he indicated a possible liberal, but not brazenly ideological, slant. One is from United States v. Leonti, a 2003 case in which the majority held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel extends beyond the trial to include any discussions about a possible plea bargain. And in September, he issued a sharply worded dissent in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, in which an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit voted 6-5 to dismiss a lawsuit brought by prisoners who allege they were tortured in foreign prisons as part of the CIA's program of extraordinary rendition. The Government asked that the suit be dismissed to protect the secrecy of the program, and the majority agreed, citing the power of the so-called 'state secrets doctrine." Hawkins, writing for all five dissenters, objected that "the doctrine is so dangerous as a means of hiding governmental misbehavior under the guise of national security, and so violative of common rights to due process, that courts should confine its application to the narrowest circumstances that still protect the government's essential secrets." The ACLU has vowed to appeal. (Watch TIME's video "Gay Marriage in the Heartland.")
But the first order of business Monday won't be arguments over the constitutional merits of gay marriage. Instead, the three judges have set aside a full hour to first hear whether the case can be appealed at all. When Olson and Boies brought their case against Prop 8 last year, neither California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown opted to defend it. Instead, the group behind Prop 8 itself was granted permission to defend it in court. But now that a judge has ruled against the proposition, it's not clear whether that same group has standing to appeal. Normally, the parties that can challenge a decision overturning state law are those that represent the state itself, not a private group - no matter how closely involved in the initial campaign for the law it may have been.
Judge Walker expressed strong doubts that the Prop 8 backers will be allowed to proceed, but passed that issue to the Ninth Circuit. Now, the appeals judges have instructed lawyers to show why the appeal can continue, and will spend half their allotted two hours Monday on that issue alone. If the Prop 8 backers can't convince them that they have standing to appeal Walker's decision, the ruling striking down Prop 8 will stand - and marriages between gay couples will resume.
Of course, even a decision on the standing question can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which in the end will have the discretion to hear the case itself or let whatever ruling the Ninth Circuit renders stand. That's something that appellate court judges rarely forget. "It should not be surprising that we see some things differently," Hawkins said in an interview. "But as members of an institution described in the Constitution as 'such inferior courts,' we are ever mindful that the Supreme Court has the last word."
See pictures of the gay-rights movement.

[HTannor]

Ah, yes, Brother Davis, one of my law clerks, the delectable Dolly Dingle, just placed this very article in my in-box.

I shall repair to my law library to research this question thoroghly and will hand down my decision in due course.

Said decision, of course, must be handled judiciously because of jurisdictional questions, State v Larg E. Egoes, 1912, 1st District. In this case, of course, there was a clear question as to who has the right to officiate in clashes between conflicting parties, to wit: Pax humanum sar ahp alin, et al.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Brother Judge Tannor, Brother Reprobateand I had a long chat earlier today. It seems I was in error, and the retention votes in Freehold DO allow for write-ins . . . unlike any other jurisdiction anywhere. On the planet.

My apologies for thinking you were making a joke. I sure do get confused by your wacky, trailer-park humor from time to time!

Maybe next time I'm in town, I can take you to dinner and you can explain some of the finer points of the local law! I'd love to hear your thoughts on, say, the legality of $1,500 parking tickets in unmarked zones.

[Gabriel Reproba]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

Brother Judge Tannor, Brother Reprobateand I had a long chat earlier today. It seems I was in error, and the retention votes in Freehold DO allow for write-ins . . . unlike any other jurisdiction anywhere. On the planet.

My apologies for thinking you were making a joke. I sure do get confused by your wacky, trailer-park humor from time to time!

Maybe next time I'm in town, I can take you to dinner and you can explain some of the finer points of the local law! I'd love to hear your thoughts on, say, the legality of $1,500 parking tickets in unmarked zones.

Just don't make him upset, Rev. Rodimer. I can't tell you how many times he has held me in contempt. Still, the Pastors all supported his campaing, so he got the job of being the judge for The City of Freehold, Inc. Since we are and incorporated city, we are our own jurisdiction at the trial level.

Judge: thank you for rescheduling our evidentiary hearing. See you Wed. morning at 10:30!

[HTannor]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

Brother Judge Tannor, Brother Reprobateand I had a long chat earlier today. It seems I was in error, and the retention votes in Freehold DO allow for write-ins . . . unlike any other jurisdiction anywhere. On the planet.

My apologies for thinking you were making a joke. I sure do get confused by your wacky, trailer-park humor from time to time!

Maybe next time I'm in town, I can take you to dinner and you can explain some of the finer points of the local law! I'd love to hear your thoughts on, say, the legality of $1,500 parking tickets in unmarked zones.

Thank you, Rev., for your belated thoughts. I am most greatful for the support you eventually got around to giving me.

On the subject of meeing for dinner, I would be most pleased if you select a place where we can discuss those outrageous tickets at greater length. And here, I'm not talking about the Waffle House you took me to the last time you were in town.

Your treat this time? Or will I be subjected to the humiliation of covering my own meal?

Originally Posted by Gabriel Reproba

Judge: thank you for rescheduling our evidentiary hearing. See you Wed. morning at 10:30!

I'm bringing an entirely new approach to matters concerning evidentiary proceedings. In matters such as this, open court just seems so.......so......"public," and I feel you would appreciate the opportunity of presenting your evidence is a more private setting.

And here, I'm thinking the new Freehold Fine Dining establishment. They serve a wonderful brunch in private dining rooms.

I'm sure your client would be willing to cover the expenses so I won't have to use my court-issued AmEx card (that's the one that gets examined at Town Council meetings and is subjected to nit-picking scrutiny in a forum open to the public).

If this is unacceptable, we'll just conduct the hearing in open court where the public will attend, and I'll demonstrate to them what a firm hand I have in fighting crime and upholding the public interests.