Skip to comments.The Most Egregious Performance Ever by a Federal District Judge
Posted on 08/14/2010 2:17:25 AM PDT by guitarist
The Most Egregious Performance Ever by a Federal District Judge August 13, 2010 2:29 PM By Ed Whelan
Consider the totality of Judge Walkers conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case:
Lets start with Walkers initial case-management conference when he determined, to the surprise even of plaintiffs lawyer Ted Olson, that the case couldnt be resolved, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law but would instead require extensive discovery into supposed factual issues.
Lets continue with Walkers insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.
Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal campaign communications of the Prop 8 sponsors. That ruling was overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees. But the portion that survived enabled plaintiffs to conduct scorched-earth discovery that leveraged the massive resource advantage provided by their lavish Hollywood backers. And the sweeping judicial invasion of the core political speech rights and associational rights of Prop 8 supporters had the added benefit, from Walkers perspective, of intimidating opponents of same-sex marriage from ever daring to exercise those rights again.
Then theres Walkers resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate. Walkers decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walkers lack of impartiality:
The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.
Then Walker presided over a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony, only a tiny fraction of which was relevant to any sound understanding of the issues in disputeand all of that could have been in the form of expert or documentary submissions. Andsurprise, surpriseevery single one of plaintiffs expert witnesses is an activist for same-sex marriage whose expert testimony was just a repackaging of their political advocacy.
Oh, and lets not forget that all along Walker apparently failed to disclose to the parties basic personal facts that would have enabled them to assess whether his impartiality in the matter might reasonably be questioned.
Then theres Walkers crazedand, as one same-sex marriage advocate put it, radicalruling on final judgment. That ruling ignored binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, concocted absurd factual findings, and grossly misstated the state of the record on key points.
And, just yesterday, Walkers refusal to stay his judgment pending appeal, the latest step in his gamesmanship to try to deprive Prop 8 proponents of their appeal rights and to avoid effective appellate review of his shenanigans.
Walkers course of conduct would be sufficient cause for national scandal in any case. That it comes in a case that aims to radically remake the central social institution of American society makes it utterly intolerable.
I cant imagine that any federal district judge has ever committed more egregious and momentous acts of malfeasance in a case.
Lots of links in the original article if you want to follow up on it.
As Ronald Reagan once said about a certain Evil Empire country: “We are disappointed, but not surprised.”
Beyond, of course, the irrational act of making him (it?) a Judge in the first place, that is. People with this deep societal disorder have no more place being judges than they do being parents (or being allowed to play "married," for that matter!). Absolutely fu*#ing disgusting.
IMHO (In My Heterosexual Opinion)
I go back and forth on the issue of gay marriage but this judgement was a disgrace.
It comes down to something very simple—if the people can’t decide for themselves how they want to define marriage in their own society, and the power to make that decision is left to the judiciary, we are not living in a nation that exists “for the people.”
Has anyone other than myself noticed how much the gay community and gays seem to occupy top positions in our institutions now, and how much they dominate top news stories? They are what, around 10% of our population but they get all this attention because of their sexual preferences!? One has to think that their cause is very prevalent in the media and, in this case, the legal system. They are never going to be happy with their lot in life because they want “special” status for something most people feel is a private matter. Also, if they can achieve some kind of “victim” status, there is money at the end of that rainbow. It is hard, on a day to day basis, to comprehend all the twisted logic going on in our legal community these days. It causes most of us to wonder...and wonder...and wonder about what is really going on.
This entire thing should be a testament to what happens when we compromise on our values and abandon our convictions.
From what I understand, this judge was originally nominated by Reagan but blocked, then later appointed and approved under the Bush administration. I imagine it was an attempt to appeal to the left in some fashion, to show that Republicans and conservatives are sensitive and tolerant, despite whatever differences may have been noted.
And now people are complaining about this judge’s ruling.
Well, DUH! I cannot find much disagreement with the appointment when it happened, but now that it has backfired people are all up in arms.
I HATE this ruling. It PISSES ME THE *F* OFF. But I’m not surprised.
This is what happens when we let our values be compromised. Let it be a lesson to us all.
I believe the neurosis is very broad in scope.
Homosexuals have, for the first time in human history, a court system and a media that can attempt to "normalize" their behavior, and yet every living thing they see reminds them that they are not part of the heterosexual design of life.
No matter how many judges rule in their favor, nor how many TV shows put their kind in seemingly normal ordinary situations, nothing that is alive now or that has ever lived is the result of a homosexual union. Marriage will never describe a fruitless homosexual union no matter what judges and family courts and adoption agencies say. No matter how normal they try to make their "marriages" seem, it will never be equivalent to real marriage because it cannot be. And every living thing they see will remind them of this, so "normal" can never be enough ... it has to be "special" for them
The disconnect from reality seems obvious. Gays put on this display of flaming omnipresence in modern media, but when you ask how many such people do you actually meet, you have to confess it’s far less than the media represents (unless you are in certain limited locales or professions).
A reportedly small contingency of homosexuals are realistic about this and say that they don’t want marriage in their crowd. Their thing is a single adult thing, and they don’t want kids or “civil unions” cluttering up their scene. Maybe there are two levels of homo, one involving simply the lust and a second one that also embraces this doubled down perversion of wanting a punked out version of family. If the first is hard to grok, imagine trying to understand the second.
The scandal that stymied Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Walker was the all-men club that Walker had belonged to. This was too “genderist” for the Reagan era Senate. If Reagan and Bush I had only known what this all-men club probably did in its spare time....
I’ll admit to not really knowing a whole lot about that particular issue.
Still, was this judge’s orientation and political leaning really THAT well hidden?
I got the idea he came out of the closet later. And thanks to the ever-scheming MSM, it elicited a big yawn.
I am at a loss as to where to begin researching this nonsense. I want to find more information, but there is so much CRAP on the internet getting in the way of finding anything of value. This may take me a while. Oh well.
Still, I find it very hard to believe that this guy managed to hide his liberal leanings all the way up to overturning Prop 8.
Thanks for posting this. Yesterday, I took the time to go back and read his commentaries since the beginning of the trial and can’t believe (well, yea I can) that this Judge was not removed from the case.
All I can see is that he must realize there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage and wrote his final opinion so it was nothing but a full-on statement of his political opinion, knowing it will be reversed.
Judges can be removed from the bench - it’s time we start using that option.
More like 2% of the population.....
>>They are what, around 10% of our population but they get all this attention because of their sexual preferences!?
The last time I looked into that, 2-3% seemed to be a realistic number. 10% is pure propaganda. Unsurprisingly enough, given their influence in the media.
>>yet every living thing they see reminds them that they are not part of the heterosexual design of life.
It really gives Lefties pause when you point out that homosexuality is profoundly non-Darwinian, both on an individual and a societal level.
Obama backs the Muslims building their Mosque because he is Muslim.
Wright backs the Homosexuals because he is homosexual.
There is no other argument.
The author left off one facet of Judge Walker’s efforts to derail Prop 8. According to Hugh Hewitt, Walker allowed Imperial County to join the pro Prop 8 faction in the just concluded case, but then denied the County standing for an appeal, meaning only the State’s Attorney General could file an appeal, thus torpedoing any further action.
“This is a breathtaking bit of manipulation of the case by all concerned and especially given the court’s dismissal of Imperial County’s motion to intervene in the case which, had it been granted, would have resolved this question. If the 9th Circuit refuses proponents of Prop 8 standing, then Jerry Brown will have to bring the appeal.”