First Prop 8 Amicus Brief Raises Issue of Judge Walker's Sexual Orientation

  • metta

    Posts: 39095

    Sep 18, 2010 9:18 AM GMT

    First Prop 8 Amicus Brief Raises Issue of Judge Walker's Sexual Orientation




    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202472224189&First_Prop__Amicus_Brief_Raises_Issue_of_Judges_Sexual_Orientation

    http://alturl.com/af84n
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 18, 2010 10:02 AM GMT
    When you have no "legal" legs to stand on you bring up things like this

    This doesn't worry me
    What worries me is that we have a packed Supreme Court with republican appointed bigots that will be waiting for this to get handed to them

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 10:14 AM GMT
    Can you imagine what people would say if we claimed a straight judge was biased because of his straightness? There would be outrage and ridicule.

    For some people a simple defeat in court is sufficient. Others require a hammer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    The appellate court is going to use this for comedic relief!

    Now that brief is downright hysterical!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Sep 18, 2010 3:31 PM GMT
    GQjock saidWhen you have no "legal" legs to stand on you bring up things like this

    This doesn't worry me
    What worries me is that we have a packed Supreme Court with republican appointed bigots that will be waiting for this to get handed to them




    Awwwww, now c'mon. He of little faith. Let's see what the vote is when that day comes. You may be surprised.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWhy wouldn't his sexual orientation be an issue? It could indicate a conflict of interest.

    You stupid moron..

    "straight republican" judges have a 'stake' in the outcome.. they ALSO have a "conflict of interest" now dont they?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWhy wouldn't his sexual orientation be an issue? It could indicate a conflict of interest.

    Just like when all the Democrats / liberals on here howled that the judge that struck down Obama's drilling moratorium should not have heard the case because he owned a few shares of oil-industry stocks, which he sold prior to having to hear the case.

    So..... where's your howling screams of conflict of interest re: Walker?


    Fuck you. Nothing constructive came from your post except some absolute-for-shit argument of equivalency.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWhy wouldn't his sexual orientation be an issue? It could indicate a conflict of interest.

    Just like when all the Democrats / liberals on here howled that the judge that struck down Obama's drilling moratorium should not have heard the case because he owned a few shares of oil-industry stocks, which he sold prior to having to hear the case.

    So..... where's your howling screams of conflict of interest re: Walker?


    And if a straight judge ruled in favor of prop 8, the same could be said. In fact, every legal judgement against gay people that lay at the feet of straight people is now suspect. Thanks for pointing that out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:35 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    mickeytopogigio saidFuck you. Nothing constructive came from your post except some absolute-for-shit argument of equivalency.

    Obviously my argument has some traction wiht you as it agitated you to the point of hurling an obscene insult at me. Always the sign of someone who is on the losing side of an argument.
    LMAO.. it was YOU moron who screamed here first..

    "Always the sign of someone who is on the losing side of an argument.".. sound remotely familiar?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    McGay saidAnd if a straight judge ruled in favor of prop 8, the same could be said. In fact, every legal judgement against gay people that lay at the feet of straight people is now suspect. Thanks for pointing that out.


    Correct.

    It is not to say that they have all been biased, or even any of them, but it does require a closer look to see if any conflict of interest existed and if so did it influence the decision.

    Now, there's a rational thought, huh?


    Rational as counting grains of sand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:42 PM GMT
    You look scarey when you're sleeping.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said if you are gonna respond to my previous posts, keep it civil and discussing the issues.

    Sorry but I have the freedom on this site to respond to your utterly ridiculous posts any way I feel free to.. how about you keep it intellectually honest? We'll call it a draw because you can't possibly achieve that.
  • Aquariandy

    Posts: 24

    Sep 18, 2010 3:46 PM GMT
    Back to the original issue... I understand the strategy of calling into question any possible bias against a judge that does not rule in your favor. Certainly, I'm happy with his ruling, whatever the judge's personal life. But by calling it into question at all, I think the Prop 8 backers are not redressing their concerns through proper channels. I mean, if anyone has a problem with a judge's decision, they can appeal the decision, but beyond that, all judges are a part of the US legal system, and to disrespect them personally seems to be bordering on illegal or treasonous, no?

  • camfer

    Posts: 891

    Sep 18, 2010 3:48 PM GMT
    It is an application to file an amicus brief, and you can read it here

    http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/37584215

    It's good for a laugh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:53 PM GMT


    The judge did the right thing; he ruled against prop 8, then stayed his ruling to give opposition a chance to challenge his ruling, which they did.

    I wonder what a straight pro 8 judge would have done? Upheld prop 8 and given the opposition no chance to challenge his ruling? Likely.

    -Doug


  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Sep 18, 2010 3:54 PM GMT
    In response to Southbeach's response, there is a stark difference in conflict of interest between this case and the drilling moratorium. Should no black judges ever have been able to hear cases involving Civil Rights because of their obvious position on the issue? The review and judgements on law are based on the interpretations of the law, ultimately being with the Constitution. Equality is an objective requirement of the law. Just because someone of a particular demographic may very well be positively impacted by the decisions of the court doesn't make it an automatic disqualifier from being part of that decision. The law stands on its own. But things are different when there are potential monetary or property gains when one is involved in a court decision. The conflict of interest here becomes an issue because the gain of property due to such decisions are issues involving the law that forbids property gains when influencing the law or government activities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:57 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    McGay saidYou look scarey when you're sleeping.

    And, apparently to most of the RJ liberal / Democrat / socialist mob... when I am awake as well! icon_lol.gif


    Well, you still don't get it. The 'mob' you describe is likely turned off that you display all the qualities most gays gets slapped for; selfish, shallow, cold, unempathetic, grasping, ego-driven and status conscious.

    ...and that's just a start.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 3:58 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidIn response to Southbeach's response, there is a stark difference in conflict of interest between this case and the drilling moratorium. Should no black judges ever have been able to hear cases involving Civil Rights because of their obvious position on the issue? The review and judgements on law are based on the interpretations of the law, ultimately being with the Constitution. Equality is an objective requirement of the law. Just because someone of a particular demographic may very well be positively impacted by the decisions of the court doesn't make it an automatic disqualifier from being part of that decision. The law stands on its own. But things are different when there are potential monetary or property gains when one is involved in a court decision. The conflict of interest here becomes an issue because the gain of property due to such decisions are issues involving the law that forbids property gains when influencing the law or government activities.
    Which in turns feeds the notion that since humans are impacted in some way to any interpretation of the law/constitution, all humans are disqualified from the process of interpretation.
    Maybe southbeach can comprehend this, most likely not given his intellectual dishonesty.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Sep 18, 2010 4:01 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    And I'm not saying there was a conflict of interest. However, it is something that should be looked at.

    If it is found that there was none, then great, all is well.



    But the whole question of conflict of interest on the judge is purely about his sexual orientation. The claim that a gay judge ruling against prop 8 is unfounded, wouldn't you agree?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 4:03 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWhy wouldn't his sexual orientation be an issue? It could indicate a conflict of interest.

    This point may have been made above. I havent read everything.

    Every judge has a sexual orientation. So this argument could be made for any judge. Therefore, no judge could rule on the matter. But I guess that would be fine with the filers of the amicus brief.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 4:03 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    mickeytopogigio saidFuck you. Nothing constructive came from your post except some absolute-for-shit argument of equivalency.

    Obviously my argument has some traction wiht you as it agitated you to the point of hurling an obscene insult at me. Always the sign of someone who is on the losing side of an argument.
    LMAO.. it was YOU moron who screamed here first..

    "Always the sign of someone who is on the losing side of an argument.".. sound remotely familiar?


    OK, let's just jump ahead a few posts and get this out of the way:

    RJ Gay #1: Fuck you southbeach

    RJ Gay #2: Southbeach you are a moron

    RJ Gay #3: Southbeach you are a fucktard

    RJ Gay #4: Southbeach you aren't gay

    RJ Gay #5: Southbeach is an asshat

    RJ Gay #6: Southbeach is a stinking pile of shit

    RJ Gay #7: Southbeach is retarded

    RJ Gay #8: Southbeach is ugly

    RJ Gay #9: Southbeach makes poopie in his pants


    OK.... now that we've gotten all that out of the way.... if you are gonna respond to my previous posts, keep it civil and discussing the issues.



    I seriously condemn all of these insults. so quick do we lash out at those we disagree with.

    Except for the last one... that ones REALLY funny!!!! lol hahah I'm sorry sb... it is.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 4:09 PM GMT
    Southbeach, a conflict of interest is always regarded on a monetary/financial level. Personal "issues" have never disqualified a judge from hearing a case. This is why you don't understand why the argument you were making was a false equivalency. That you think you understand the issue better than us gays is why you deserve a "Fuck you."

    If you were adding something constructive to the argument with your "conflict of interest" claim, I'd be more than happy to discuss its merits. But your uninformed position sounds only like contrarian noise...for the sake of being a dick.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 4:10 PM GMT

    I guess we need a cadre of asexual judges for cases where sexual orientation is at issue.

    Wait! We've got the Supreme Court. Look at a picture of them: I don't think any of them has been laid in decades.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Sep 18, 2010 4:11 PM GMT
    metta8 said
    First Prop 8 Amicus Brief Raises Issue of Judge Walker's Sexual Orientation




    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202472224189&First_Prop__Amicus_Brief_Raises_Issue_of_Judges_Sexual_Orientation

    http://alturl.com/af84n





    Ultimately, I think it will prove a positive thing for our side that this "conflict of interest" issue brief has been raised. It kind of has the effect of shooting themselves in the foot, since the argument holds absolutely no water when you put it up against similar arguments that could but, of course, should not be raised regarding female judges ruling on female issues, black judges ruling on race-related issues, or say a straight judge ruling on something like "Defense of Marriage". The same argument could have been raised by our side had a straight judge ruled the other way. Having raised this "conflict of interest" issue will surely come back to bite them in the ass.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Sep 18, 2010 4:20 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    mickeytopogigio saidSouthbeach, a conflict of interest is always regarded on a monetary/financial level. But your uninformed position sounds only like contrarian noise...for the sake of being a dick.


    Right... so a judge could preside over a case where his brother is accused of murder. Yep.

    And...

    Ooops, forgot that one:

    RJ Gay #1: Fuck you southbeach. You are a dick.




    SB, did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? icon_rolleyes.gif A judge presiding over a case where his brother is accused of murder is not the same "conflict of interest" as someone's sexuality being called into question due to their ruling in a case. C'mon, I know you're a heck of a lot brighter than you are pretending to be this morning.