One operative quote:
"Walker submitted a letter yesterday in response to the motion. In his letter, Walker acknowledges that he took a full set of the video recordings with him when he retired from the court and re-entered private life. He also acknowledges that he used a three-minute excerpt of the recordings, consisting of cross-examination of an expert witness for the Prop 8 proponents, in one public presentation before he retired (on February 28)—the University of Arizona speech that he knew was videotaped by C-SPAN for broadcast—and that he has already used the same excerpt in two public presentations since his retirement (with a third planned use scheduled for next week).
Walker has thus confirmed the factual basis for Prop 8 proponents’ charge that he has violated his own order placing the video recordings under seal, that he has violated the Northern District of California’s local rules barring transmission of trial proceedings beyond “the confines of the courthouse,” and that he has acted in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling barring broadcast of the trial proceedings—a ruling that weighed heavily, in its balance of equities, the threat of harm and harassment that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would face from broadcast.
What legal defense does Walker offer? Walker simply asserts that he “decided that in the presentation on February 18 at the University of Arizona it would be permissible and appropriate to use the actual cross-examination,” but he does not accompany that assertion with any explanatory reasoning."
Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial
Second operative quote:
""There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.
As evidence, she cites the judge's conservative - albeit libertarian - reputation, and says, "There wasn't anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation."
State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who has sponsored two bills to authorize same-sex marriage that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said that as far as he's concerned, Walker's background is a nonissue. "It seems curious to me," he said, that when the state Supreme Court heard a challenge to Prop. 8, the justices' sexual orientation "was never discussed."
Leno added, "I have great respect for Judge Walker, professionally and personally.""
This is preposterous! A group of people who want justice and fairness and to be recognized as wanting and being normal people have attached themselves to a case presided over by a nut of a judge, who should have refused the case on the grounds he had no authority to question the California State Constitutional process, who should have never taken the case because of his own sexual orientation, who couldn't come up with a legal reason to overturn Prop 9 other than all 7 million voters were Christian bigots and therefore their decision was discounted accordingly, who recorded the case even though the Supreme Court said. "no" and then after giving his word to proponents the recording was for his review and would not reveal it outside the court - goes back on his word and does so.
The opponents of Prop 8 are the laughing stock of the Judicial world - they did not win on merit they won on a circus act; on the lunatic behavior and illogic of a gay judge; on the ruling of a egomaniac; on a magic trick! This case not only discredited the opponents it discredited the whole Federal Court System as kooky, unreliable and down right thuggish. So why would normal citizens believe and take stock in such a system and not be as defiant as this retired judge? Have not a clue - it is what I probable will do. I will never again vote for a California Constitutional proposition knowing some idiotic federal judge is going to stick their nose in the decision and void it by judicial fiat.
Again if I could bend the opponents ear I would suggest - this is not how you want this to go down. With all this kookiness and attempts at shuffling justice their way the likelyhood the Supreme Court is going to put their stamp of approval to this ruling is getting slimmer and slimmer as ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker crashes around in his little world trying to appear as a little Napolean. Cut your loses and ask for the ruling to be voided because of all this shenanigans so you can proceed judicially somewhere else in one of the other Fifty States (Retreat to fight another day.) - if not you are reliant on just 3 -4 Supreme Court justices to hold their nose and agree with with ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker and go to their graves forever tagged with this horrendous episode of Judicial quackery.
If I could bend the ear of the Federal Court System - just void the ex-judge (Thank God) Egomaniac Walker's decision because of the above messiness. Avoid making yourselves even more irrelevant, stupid, illogical, laughable, dumb - i.e. add whatever negative quality you can think of - than you already are. This will be another albatross along with Rowe v Wade around the Supreme Court justices necks
No comments:
Post a Comment