Chief Judge James Ware of Federal District Court for the Northern District of California has rejected a motion for disqualification of Judge Vaughn Walker (shown left) because of his longtime relationship with his partner. Judge Ware noted that there was no evidence that Judge Walker intended to marry his partner.
Given the fact that there is no evidence of an intent to marry, Ware ruled there was no requirement that Walker disclose the relationship. It is a major ruling for judges and the limits of disqualification.
Walker ruled earlier in striking down the ban on same-sex marriage contained in Proposition 8.
The ProtectMarriage.com legal team has announced that they will appeal the decision.
Source: NYT
“Suppose that there has been a consensus belief for thousands of years which contains a form of error so “clever and subtil””
Clever Brian,
But I’m not biting, that argument you have with Buddha. Though I will say that the adversarial system, though imperfect, is the best we have. This is even though I’m not much for trial by combat, unless it’s my gun to someone else’s knife and he’s at least ten feet away.
RE: Mike Spindell, June 16, 2011 at 5:47 pm
“they would, themselves, HAVE to argue that currently or potentially married judges could not rule on this case because of their own potential for bias.”
tomdarch,
Very true but too subtle a point for that side to understand. When you totally believe that what you believe is not only right, but the only way, then the ironies of some of your positions are invisible to you.
#######################################
Okay…
Only I have an additional thought.
Suppose that there has been a consensus belief for thousands of years which contains a form of error so “clever and subtil” as to elude human understanding, and that said error is a main principle of established law and justice, such that those whose livelihoods depend upon the error may be implacably resistant to understanding it and its consequences accurately.
If judges have a bias toward making judgments, who can judge without bias?
Oops!
“they would, themselves, HAVE to argue that currently or potentially married judges could not rule on this case because of their own potential for bias.”
tomdarch,
Very true but too subtle a point for that side to understand. When you totally believe that what you believe is not only right, but the only way, then the ironies of some of your positions are invisible to you.
Particularly given the fact that the anti-gay-marriage groups make the claim that recognizing gay marriage “weakens” or takes away from two-person, gender heterogeneous marriages, they would, themselves, HAVE to argue that currently or potentially married judges could not rule on this case because of their own potential for bias.
The motion was a shameless collateral attack on a libertarian-oriented judge. It was so devoid of merit in my opinion that the court should consider sanctioning the movants for violation of Rule 11 of the Fed. Rules of Civ Proc.
Say what?
The motion was thin, and a stretch, appealing to bias.
Rafflaw,
Would they want to disqualify someone who was married? What about someone who was just engaged? What about someone who wanted to be married, but just found out that she was engaged to the bully that always picked on him in high school and is in the middle of a wacky plan to win her heart while confronting his inner demons?
Please tell me again why this judge should be disqualified? Who cares if he wants to marry his male partner? Should any heterosexual judge be disqualified due to their marital status when hearing a case that determines the rights of homosexuals to be married?