Tweet
Chief Judge James Ware of the Federal Court of the Northern California District ruled today that the bigots’ argument that Vaughn Walker should have recused himself because he could possibly benefit, by marrying his long-time companion, from his own ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Yesterday was a low point in the federal justice system: it was offensive and heinous that a petitioner could come in to federal court to argue that a judge’s sexual orientation, and relationship status, deprives that judge of the ability to rule impartially. Happily, Judge Ware did not take long to discard this odious argument, made by bigots as a last gasp against the arc of justice.
Sponsors of the voter-approved 2008 ban offered no evidence that then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had planned to marry his partner and can’t rely on mere speculation to show that he had a conflict of interest, said James Ware, who succeeded Walker as chief judge and inherited the case.
The fact that a judge is in a relationship doesn’t necessarily mean he is “so interested in marrying the person that he would be unable to exhibit the impartiality which, it is presumed, all federal judges maintain,” Ware said.
A gay judge is entitled to rule in a gay-rights case, even if his ruling could provide him “some speculative future benefit,” Ware said.
The contrary argument by Walker’s opponents, he said, would require “recusal of minority judges in most, if not all, civil rights cases.”
Further, Ware wrote about Walker and the absurd arguments made against him and his personal life by the ProtectMarriage bigots:
“The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification,” wrote Ware in his ruling, issued a day after he heard oral arguments in the matter.
Let’s hope this is the very last of this kind of argument we ever see in federal court at any level.
43 Comments
From Chad Griffin of American Foundation for Equal Rights, via email:
Dear Teddy,
Today, in an historic and forceful decision, US District Court Chief Judge James S. Ware denied anti-marriage forces’ motion to throw out the decision that ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional.
He erased all doubt that the Prop. 8 trial was anything but fair and thorough and sent a powerful message that extreme fringe groups cannot strong-arm the law.
More at Courage Campaign’s Prop 8 Trial Tracker:
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2011/06/14/breaking-judge-ware-denies-motion-to-vacate-judge-walkers-ruling/
It’s really good that’s clarified. Most of the Supreme Court decisions have positive impact on white people and were decided by white judges, I’d hate to have the whole shebang invalidated suddenly. We were really standing on the edge of a precipice facing the darkening fog here.
And from Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly:
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/06/motion-to-vacate-prop-8-decisi.html
As to the underlying principles at play, Ware also notes, “[I]t is inconsistent with the general principles of constitutional adjudication to presume that a member of a minority group reaps a greater benefit from application of the substantive protections of our Constitution than would a member of the majority.”
In denying the portion of the proponent’s motion claiming that a “reasonable observer” would question Judge Walker’s impartiality, Ware writes:
The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits.
Heterosexual Penile Americans decided laws in favor of their fellow heterosexual penile Americans! Oh, the horror.
Good point, o.
I was watching and waiting and I’m happy about this ruling.
What’s the next step? When will the law be overturned?
I hate to say it but is there any chance in hell that someone is going to appeal this ruling because Ware officiated at a same-sex wedding? (read that bit in an article about the ruling earlier today.)
I don’t want to be paranoid. It just happens sometimes.
Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.
Thanks for the post, Teddy.
This motion was illogical in so many ways.
By arguing that Walker stood to benefit, the haters were effectively conceeding there is a benefit to marriage over civil unions, which undermines their whole case.
So that means right wingers think white judges can’t be impartial on civil cases and straight judges can’t be impartial on gay civil rights cases, huh?
(typo) …impartial on civil rights cases…
Teddy.
Could you drop me a line, the email I have for you bounced.
I need some advice on political related stuff.
LLAP,
Spocko
spockosemail at gmail .c om
I rather like the court’s ruling, though I am not a fan of walker’s original ruling. Leave that to the side for a minute, because the District has made a great case for future judges not having to recuse themselves from hearing, for instance, a case relating to a corporation in which the presiding judge has an ownership stake.
I can see it now – anyone who argues that such a jurist should recuse himself will be met with the following argument:
“The presumption that Judge X, by virtue of being in a shareholder in Corp Y, had a desire financially profit that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a financial relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits.
I LOVE precedent!
No, idiot. In civil rights, cases everyone has a stake as either a member of the class seeking relief or as a member of the class benefiting from discrimination. To have ruled that Walker should have recused would have meant that no judge could ever rule on a civil rights case.
By the way, you didn’t read Walker’s original ruling.
Thanks, Teddy. I am so glad the case has now moved this far. Good for both Judges. This all makes Walker look so classy as he puts up with such idiocy.
Mahalo, Teddy for all your efforts…! Does it represent the last nail in the coffin for appeals on Prop Hate…?
Theodore Boutrous, counsel for the Perry plaintiffs, said that the defendant-intervenor (bigots) who brought this motion to vacate could appeal, but it would be difficult for them to establish standing. I think it’s entirely possible, given the seemingly unlimited funds available to Charles Cooper’s legal team.
Otherwise, the appeal proceeds; this motion to vacate was a separate Hail Mary outside the appeal process. The California Supreme Court has been asked by the Federal Appeals Court (Ninth Circuit) to weigh in on the standing issue — do the defendant-intervenors even have the right to appeal if they cannot show harm? — and then, depending on the CA Supremes’ ruling, it’s back to the Federal Appeals Court for ruling on the merits of Walker’s ruling.
Then, obviously, to the US Supreme Court. It’s very likely this will be argued or decided in the heat of the presidential election year in 2012.
I also never understood how a heterosexual judge, using their logic, could rule on the merits of the case, given the grave harm they claim same-sex marriage does to opposite-marriage. It’s a conundrum, but a laughable one.
Chief Judge Ware made very short work of the ludicrous motion, and kudos to him for that.
Pecuniary arguments were addressed separately in the pleadings, the arguments, and the ruling. I suggest you read the case, unless you want to continue to occupy your fantasy position without any evidence. This has nothing to do with financial benefit to judges.
And as Ware eloquently explained in the ruling, decisions about restrictions on equal access to the law and equal protection from its heavy hand don’t merely benefit the protected class at stake: these cases affect all citizens, benefit all of us, so there’s simply no one unaffected by them.
Anywhere in America.
Your point is correct: people should read this eloquent decision (especially before deciding it sets precedent in entirely different arenas! *g*)
Yes indeed.
He bent himself into pretzels to ensure a fair trial for the bigots, and this is the thanks he gets. I can’t think of another judge who could have given them a fairer hearing.
No, not at all, see my note in response to Demi above, regarding process (where we stand).
But we should all try to avoid calling other commenters names, okay?
Yes. thanks Teddy, I guess it’s on to the supremes how sad
The homobigots fired all their bullets and then started throwing mud. I wonder what their next move is?
Yesterday was a low point in the federal justice system:
Actually, I think that it ended a horribly low point in the system.
Sadly, we know where Obummer stands, and, I’m sure Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Roberts could coax a narrow ruling in support of the Haters…! 8-(
Hopefully, Olsen can encourage Kennedy to ‘swing’ to the Lib side…!
There is some technical glitch with my MyFDL account, with which I have been patient for some time, but now, No. I must speak.
[Michael Whitney and Tech crew - I'll delete this account once you've fixed my real account]
Kelly Canfield here, and indeed, Walker need not have recused himself.
*heh* There’s still plenty of opportunity for a ‘double dip’, jayt…! ;-)
Aloha, Bro…! Great job earlier…! *g*
I wonder what their next move is
Hopefully, they’ll try to hold their breath until they get their way….
*smiles*
Thanks!
Ground hog day. The homo hatrers have appealed the decision.
‘En Banc’ decisicion…? 8-(
You want a pony with that too, right?
/s
As I said to Bill Egnor on the same subject, how does this help me when I have received no Cost of Living Allowance for the last two year? Nice decision. Kudos. All that.
But it does not really matter to a lot of us. I’m not knocking anyone. Just saying this is not very important to a lot of us. Call me an asshole. I don’t care. I’m not gay. I’m not anti-gay, either. But I’m hanging on by my fingernails. How does this ruling help me and mine?
Seriously. Think about this. If you all want a true movement for progressive change, you need a broad coalition. How does this decision help a heterosexual boyfriend of a single mother? Why should I care? In terms that are relevant to me? Moral arguments won’t cut it, I’ll tell you that right now.
Really. Why should I care? Any responses will have to wait almost 24 hours. I have to go to bed now.
You need to be helped by any Major Law Decision? Really?
That someone else, the other in this case LGBT, is somehow recognized that THEY need helped, doesn’t matter to you? Really?
And do you not realize that Equality for All, is actually that; Equality for All? And you lose something somehow?
Much like a boomerang bigots will return. They are packing the court system with conservoactivist judges like David Prosser in Wisconsin.
I believe that if we do not begin taking back the courts from their hands, the rest of the government won’t much matter because its the courts that are final arbiters of all actions legislative or executive.
If a judge can’t be impartial then he shouldn’t be a judge, period. Yes, there are limits: a judge whose retirement savings are tied up in XYZ, Inc. shouldn’t preside over a class action suit against the corp, but aside from such direct and immediate persoanl interests IMO you either trust the judge to rule fairly or you get him teh hell off the bench.
“[I]t is inconsistent with the general principles of constitutional adjudication to presume that a member of a minority group reaps a greater benefit from application of the substantive protections of our Constitution than would a member of the majority.”
I agree, of course, but I’m surprised that you do. It kinda blows the whole Disparate Impact = Racism theory out of the water, you know?
After several weeks of awful news, this is especially welcome now.
Olsen and Boies expect to win this 9-0.
Well, we have to take our victories where we get them, don’t we?
I certainly think there will be riots in the streets after all this food and gasoline inflation if there’s not a COLA this year. Are you up for leading that?
I think the topic speaks to solidarity and seeing ourselves as part of a community; let alone that may be you are missing a piece of compassion for a community that has had a quite complicated/difficult history.
I welcomed this news. Thanks for keeping us posted on it, Teddy. I read it my “nooz” paper this morning, and I was happy to have a chance to smile. To see the “rule of law” preserved, at least in one instance, is a very good thing, esp insofar as it goes to protecting ALL of our civil rights. I would argue that this is not just about LGBT folks. Civil rights are civil rights. It has an impact on everyone.
A point to ponder is that the H8ters wanted to shut down a process bc they didn’t get “their way.” IF they had succeeded in forcing the Judge to be recused, it would have signified yet another blow against ALL of our civil rights… and yet another blow against the overall “rule of law.”
I am grateful for this decision on several different levels.
I appreciate your question, and it’s a very good one to ask.
Will this assist you somehow financially to “make it” in this economy? No, no it won’t.
However, my take, fwiw, is that this decision is NOT only about LGBT civil rights, it’s about civil rights for all citizens. It’s about having true “fairness” in our system of justice, and it’s about maintaining a bulwark against those in this country who would destroy our nation’s justice system simply to force citizens to give up civil rights in order to comply with what a minority “feels is fair.”
In the immediate sense, there is no immediate relief or redress for you, but I truly feel you need to take a longer view. Realize that civil rights for one down-trodden group inure powerfully to the benefit of the whole. Realize that upholding the true rule of law against a minority group who just wants to have their way is also a powerful decision that has an impact for the better of us all.
Best to you. Thanks for a useful question.