Tweet
2005 Marriage Equality Rhode Island Rally by Jef Nickerson, on Flickr
Judge James Ware, who succeeded Vaughn Walker as the [chief judge of the 9th Circuit-- corrected] Chief Judge of the U.S, District Court for the Northern District of California, has called for briefs and scheduled a hearing on the motion by Prop 8 Defendant-Intervenors to vacate Judge Walker’s ruling on the grounds that he is 1) a homosexual and 2) in a long-term relationship and therefore 3) his ruling that invalidated Proposition 8 could directly benefit himself.
Set/Reset Deadlines as to [768] MOTION to Vacate Judgment. Responses due by 5/13/2011. Replies due by 5/23/2011. Motion Hearing set for 6/13/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2011)
This is rank bigotry, and I’ll tell you why: Yes on 8 says Judge Walker’s ruling shouldn’t count because he’s gay and in a long-term, committed relationship that might result in a marriage should his own ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional be upheld.
They claim he has a conflict of interest. Now, for a moment, simply imagine a federal judge entertaining a motion from a defendant that an African-American judge couldn’t impartially decide a school desegregation case because he lives in the affected district. Imagine a federal judge entertaining a motion to disqualify a colleague from a case about the legality of selling birth control devices because the judge lived in the affected jurisdiction and is married to a fertile woman. Imagine a judge being asked to vacate the judgment of another judge who ruled on that state’s process for about distributing and evaluating marital assets because that judge happened to be in the midst of a divorce from her husband.
This is rank bigotry on the part of Judge Ware, and can only be justified by the federal court system’s consideration of gay people as second-class citizens. It is shameless prejudice. No heterosexual judge would be held to any similar standard regarding her own long-term, committed relationship. No plaintiff would dare question the bona fides of a straight judge.
Gays are second-class in federal court and in America; Judge James Ware just proved the entire point of Perry.
And no chief judge would consider such a motion about a heterosexual judge, nor would he grant a hearing and request briefs on the topic. It is absurd on its face and should be rejected by the federal court system. Judge Ware should be sanctioned for allowing such rank bigotry a place in his courtroom.
He should certainly remove himself from any further deliberations regarding the Perry case, as he’s shown himself to hold bigotry in high enough esteem to hear its arguments about a colleague.
It’s shameful and it shouldn’t be tolerated.
60 Comments
Blergh.
Recc’d
How long are we going to stand for this treatment?
This is horrifying.
As a reader pointed out via e-mail: Walker could have got married during the window in 2008; he doesn’t need to use his courtroom as a wedding planner!
Do we need any other evidence that gay Americans — and our relationships — are less than?
Nope. Sorry to say it.
It’s despicable bigotry, Teddy; no gettin’ around it. The worst evidence of being ‘less than’ to me is that some assholes believe that the grounds Ware cites are *justification* in any way.
Ok, so much for Prop 8 folks, that this is indeed fuckery of the first sort has never been in dispute. One expects the worst from the scumbags.
Of greatest import, what does any one KNOW of this new Judge that took Waker’s place?
That’s something I’d think is of paramount interest no?
N thanks Teddy for staying with this one and bringing us the news . . . may Prop 8 and it’s proponents soon rot in the hell of their own making.
Ok, so am I missin something?
Wasn’t this motion an item that HAD to be dealt with in the courtroom? Didn’t Ware HAVE to do this?
Or, is his action in scheduling the hearing in of itself evidence he’s a scumbag too?
I’m a bit confused as I know little of Court Protocols N Procedures.
Thanks in advance from anyone who knows this stuff . . . like BMAZ for istance . . . or you Teddy . . .
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal: “… a judge is not obligated to schedule a hearing for that date or to even grant a hearing.”
From “James Ware (judge)“:
While the real conflict of interest, like Ginny Thomas’s lobbying, goes unchallenged.
Teddy:
Who was Ware appointed by? What else do you know about him? Are Boies and Olson still on this case? And do they have to file a response?
Wow!! Reading the rest of the Wikipedia entry, it appears Ware is a real piece of work. And an awful judge. How the hell did he get to this position?
Completely OT, but very heartwarming story, tangentially related.
I went to get my hairs cut today. It turned out to have been a baby show ‘n tell at the salon. One of the former assistants & his partner. Both had undergone in vitro fertilization. They had found a woman willing both to be an egg donor & carry the twins. Cuter little 3-month old girls, greater joy, hard to envision. Mom wasn’t there, but I overheard that she’ll come in for next show & tell.
Well you know how I feel about this Teddy. I’ve often compared the treatment transgendered Americans sometimes get from the gay community to what it would be like to say the same kind of things about African Americans. Bigotry sucks in all it’s forms and there is no such thing as a more acceptable bigot. It’s never right to hate people for what they are. For my part, I find it as reprehensible as it can be that this complaint wasn’t just dismissed without comment. Bigotry should also never be grounds for legal action, unless you are then victim of it rather than the perpetrator.
Recommended.
why would this judge’s action surprise anyone? Didn’t Eric Holder just explain to all of us yesterday that the lawyer who will defend DOMA in court is doing exactly what all exemplary lawyers should do?
If Eric Holder feels that DOMA “deserves” a defense in court, and the White House backs him up in that opinion, then why shouldn’t this judge feel that this claim of a conflict of interest deserves its day in court?
I don’t agree with either of these. But, it does appear that every time any LGBT issue arises, we always have to give the anti-gay bigots every opportunity for their position to win the day. When will it ever be time to say “ENOUGH”!!!! You’ve had all your chances and have not been able to prove your case. Now “SHUT UP”!!!
Oh but we live in an adversarial legal system.
Which is the ‘best’ system ever devised by god or man./s
And, not only did Eric Holder say the lawyer defending DOMA is doing what’s right and honorable, he also said that the LGBT community was wrong to complain and bring pressure to bear on anyone trying to defend bigotry…..
So much for “teh gays can’t procreate so they shouldn’t be allowed to blah blah blah”
Wonderful joyous news! Thanks for sharing!
Can we ask him about that next time some issue comes up that disporportionately affects African-Americans and then make him tell us how he feels about the scumbags who want to keep said discrimination in place and defend their “rights” to do so for whatever idiot reason they come up with?
You’re welcome. I loved seeing it. Joy in any form is so rare these days.
Well ya know, we should be looking forward, not back. I guess that means that we should look forward to more outrageous bigotry being granted the legitimacy of the US legal system.
Don’t people like O & Holder argue that if they can make it, anyone can.
In my adult life, that has turned out to be one of the most galling arguments I’ve had to contend with.
I have never understood that “forward looking” thing. The entire justice system of the entire world is based on ‘backward looking’. You punish people for stuff they did in the past – not for people they might be thinking about doing in the future. Oh, sorry, I forgot. All those people in Gitmo might do something in the future so they must be kept locked up forever.
My bad.
It is particularly galling because when one person succeeds it us usually more a matter of luck – of being in the right place at exactly the right time – and then the person having just the right amount of self-confidence to take the step when it is offered.
But for every brilliant kid who succeeds in getting into Harvard (like O) there are thousands of others who – miseducated in the slums of all our major cities, and swept up in the school-to-prison system that is so common now, never had the chance to be all they could be. And they were just as smart, just as motivated, and probably had/have more of a spine than O or Holder. So what makes the difference? I surely don’t know.
But whatever it is – the translation is NOT ‘anyone can make it’. That is definitely not it.
Kinda Banana Republic of them, eh? Well that’s right up Mr. Eric Chiquita Holder’s alley.
I would have thought the judge could have read this motion and after he was finally able to stop laughing long enough to control himself rule that the motion was complete and utter BS on its face and therefore denied. PERIOD The judge then could have admonished the prop 8 proponents for wasting the court’s time and warned them not to repeat it in the future.
This judge is going to find for the prop eight jerks.
Yep. It’s a done deal.
lokywoky,
You judge a system by how the ‘average’ person makes it, not how the extraordinary person does.
The “I made so everyone can meme” always omits the extraordinary talents or background of the spokesperson.
Often, the person outlouding those words has some disability in his/her background. I’m thinking of examples like one of the Menschel twins who both became Goldman Sachs partners in the 1970s. One had had polio in his youth and went around on crutches. No one could argue that he didn’t overcome adversity. However, the Menschels had advantages that the rest of us don’t and clearly the one who’d overcome the ravages of polio was naturally more endowed.
I also think of myself. I came from a squarely middle class background, courtesy of my parents pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. While I pushed the economic success up the ladder, in no circumstances do I think I represent the average. I have more gifts, which account for my success, such as it was. Not related to the system at all.
1. Don’t know
2. Not much
3. Yes
4. Briefs due in May, per the order
recommended and tweeted teddy
It sounds to me like James Ware is looking forward to his star turn in the spotlight in relation to this case, since he could have very easily dismissed this bigotry-based motion without comment (once stifling his laughter, as mentioned above).
But speaking of biases, is James Ware married? Won’t his heterosexual marriage be “less than” if the Vaughn Walker’s verdict stands? And shouldn’t he therefore recuse?
It would be great if every single judge in the Northern District of California recused on the same basis, leaving no one to hear these stupid and hate-filled motions that are the last gasp of bigots.
It’s the only way he’ll get his star turn in the spotlight: rule against Walker having heard the case, and keeping it for himself in the next go ’round.
thanks!
The feeling I had when this news came across today was exactly the feeling I had the night Prop 8 passed: it is simply another verification that I and my partner, and our relationship, simply do not matter to the larger society. We are second-class in America, our persons are second-class, our relationship is second-class.
Just like Judge Walker’s are.
And that is a horrifying feeling in America in 2011. Anytime, but especially now when our legal system is seeking ways to make, or keep, all kinds of classes of people down. When you’re officially already second-class, there isn’t much The Overlords need to do to continue to keep you down.
We’re there. We get it.
That is exactly what I expected to happen.
Treating this motion seriously by requesting briefs and scheduling a hearing validates its bigotry in a harmful and discouraging way.
No.
He could have dismissed the motion without comment, as any fair-minded jurist would do.
Everyone who earns less than $52 million/year is a second class citizen.
Some are more second class than others. So gays who pass are less second class than wimmin or black who can’t, gays who don’t pass are much more second class.
James Ware is an attention whore. That is why he has called for briefs and scheduled a hearing on the motion regarding Prop 8. Anyone willing to lie about being a murdered boy’s brother will do about anything for attention.
So is this guy just a bought puke whore and the fix is totally in? Or is he just a bought puke whore and this is just a reflexive fuck-you because he can or something? Boies and Olson to the white courtesy phone STAT ..
And if (and very likely when) he denies the motion to vacate? You’ll retract all these comments about the guy? Let’s not get too emotional about this. Regardless of whether you find the argument convincing, it’s an argument nonetheless. This case is going to be one of the biggest landmark cases in the Supreme Court. It does everybody a bit of good to get all of the bases covered — even the silly ones.
Well certainly Olson and Boies are talented enough to prove to this judge in court that he was wrong to entertain this motion as something serious.
Huh?
well. some things are too silly to be treated with any respect at all. And, this is one of those. This idiocy should have been tossed out with a strong warning about wasting the court’s time with anything as stupid as this in the future.
I’ve had more than my share of bogus (laughingly-referred-to-as-legal) procedures against me. One of the 13 (will contest soap opera) went to NYS appeals more than once. I already had complete disrespect for U.S. law. But personal involvement cemented it.
Judge James Ware:
Born 1946, appointed to 9th circuit by Geoge H.W. Bush, Sept. 28, 1990. Confirmed OCT. 1, 1990, became Chief Judge Jan. 1. 2011 when Judge Walker “stepped down”.
Ware is African American.
One wonders if Walker had any idea that Ware would entertain attacks on Walker’s Prop 8 ruling? Likely not, yet Ware MUST have a “history”.
Recommended, Teddy, and thank you.
DW
They can certainly prove it; however, he is the judge and he has the final say. Logic and facts don’t work well against bigots, or there would be no prejudice.
I know this judge. I’ve seen him on the bench, spoken to him in chambers, and interacted with him socially. He’s not perfect, but he’s a good jurist. I love all of the people in this thread jumping to conclusions about what he’s going to do based on his Wiki page. Pathetic.
using wares logic, the only judge who could actually invalidate this would be one who is gay and in a relationship. any other set of conditions would mean the invalidation could directly benefit the judge.
What do you mean jumping to conclusions? We know exactly what this judge did. He scheduled a date to hear this asinine claim which should have been tossed out. He has justified this claim by taking it seriously. He has announced to the world that there might be something to this claim. He has announced that there is a possibility that a judge might need to recuse himself based on his sexual orientation and relationship status.
By this logic a heterosexual judge would be just as compromised, as he/she might benefit from deciding the other way (viz that marriage is only for heterosexual people). How stupid are we getting? Is this the start of a new Dark Age?
Don’t tell me not to get too emotional about this.
It’s my civil rights, and Judge Walker’s, that are at issue here.
It’s being a second-class citizen that is the issue. If you are not in the suspect class, or even if you are, you have no right to tell me not to get emotional about this. Do you also tell women during political arguments not to get hysterical?
This isn’t ‘covering a base.’ This is allowing rank bigotry its day in court.
Yes, this.
You are welcome.
Given the proponents’ argument that ‘traditional marriage is under assault’ by the marriage equality folks, one would think a traditionally married heterosexual person would have much more of a conflict, since her marriage would be less-than should Prop 8 be invalidated in her court. Wouldn’t such a judge have a vested interest in seeing Prop 8 upheld, if the proponents’ arguments about the very dark danger to traditional marriage are true?
My understanding is that this was a story that he repeated to multiple audiences under many different circumstances; it was no excited utterance once. This belies a deep pathology which is unsuited for the federal bench.
Nobody’s jumping to conclusions based on things *that are true, aren’t they?* in his Wiki page. My argument is that he has admitted rank hypocrisy into his courtroom by affording this bigotry-based motion a hearing. It should have been laughed out of court, and for any other despised minority group, would have been.
Admitting this question, of homosexual judge’s bias because he is a long-term committed relationship, is evidence of strong belief in second-class citizenship of gay Americans. Your acquaintance, Judge Ware, has probably disqualified himself from judging this case, or anything to do with it, simply by granting bigotry its day in his court.
You aren’t the only person here who has a stake in the Prop 8 case. You might not believe it, but I am gay and I live in state that has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But this post is just ridiculous. A judge decides to hear arguments about vacating a case and suddenly the judge is a bigot and a shame to the judicial system?
Get a grip. What you’re advocating is that judges use their subjective opinions in deciding which arguments are heard. That happens too much already. The adversarial system of justice is founded upon the ability of anybody to have their arguments heard in a neutral court of law.
It’s one thing to accuse a judge of bigotry based on his or her decisions. It’s another thing to accuse a judge of bigotry based on an order that says the judge needs more information before making a decision.
There is another way to view this. Whatever ruling Ware makes on this motion, his decision will almost certainly be appealed – first to the 9th Circuit and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
Perhaps he thinks it best that the decision be accompanied by a carefully crafted opinion built on a solid base of briefs from all concerned and a full hearing.
It’s worth noting that this hearing will also take up the Proponents’ motion to compel return of all trial recordings (but not the motion to unseal) and Ware has ordered all parties, including Walker to be present.