Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Most Egregious Performance Ever by a Federal District Judge
National Review Online's Bench Memos ^ | August 13, 2010 | Ed Whelan

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 Walker’s conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case:

Let’s start with Walker’s initial case-management conference when he determined, to the surprise even of plaintiffs’ lawyer Ted Olson, that the case couldn’t 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.

Let’s continue with Walker’s 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 Walker’s perspective, of intimidating opponents of same-sex marriage from ever daring to exercise those rights again.

Then there’s Walker’s 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. Walker’s 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 Walker’s 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 dispute—and all of that could have been in the form of expert or documentary submissions. And—surprise, surprise—every 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 let’s 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 there’s Walker’s crazed—and, as one same-sex marriage advocate put it, “radical”—ruling 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, Walker’s 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.

Walker’s 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 can’t imagine that any federal district judge has ever committed more egregious and momentous acts of malfeasance in a case.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: caglbt; california; fdrq; homosexualagenda; judges; maragaretmarshall; marriage; newyorktimes; prop8; romney; romneymarriage; samesex; samesexmarriage; vaughnwalker
Ed nails it here. This is the most abusive performance ever by a federal district judge. As someone said elsewhere, it can't get overturned soon enough.

Lots of links in the original article if you want to follow up on it.

1 posted on 08/14/2010 2:17:27 AM PDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: guitarist

As Ronald Reagan once said about a certain Evil Empire country: “We are disappointed, but not surprised.”


2 posted on 08/14/2010 2:22:55 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarist
Aren't we talking about a homosexual here? Isn't the judge himself a borderline psychotic, deluded into the beyond-all-debate fantasy that he's a "woman trapped in a man's body?" (I have known several homosexuals over the years who describe themselves in precisely this manner.) If so, then how can any other irrational act be considered surprising?

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)

;-/

3 posted on 08/14/2010 2:33:57 AM PDT by Gargantua (The "Second Death")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

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.”


4 posted on 08/14/2010 2:37:29 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("Fanaticism is described as redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."-G. Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

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.


5 posted on 08/14/2010 3:01:02 AM PDT by jazzlite (esat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

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.


6 posted on 08/14/2010 3:13:57 AM PDT by HushTX (quit whining)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazzlite
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.

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

7 posted on 08/14/2010 3:20:25 AM PDT by spodefly (This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jazzlite

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).


8 posted on 08/14/2010 3:33:50 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: spodefly

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.


9 posted on 08/14/2010 3:38:47 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HushTX

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....


10 posted on 08/14/2010 3:41:41 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

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?


11 posted on 08/14/2010 3:47:34 AM PDT by HushTX (quit whining)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HushTX

I got the idea he came out of the closet later. And thanks to the ever-scheming MSM, it elicited a big yawn.


12 posted on 08/14/2010 3:54:41 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

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.


13 posted on 08/14/2010 3:58:08 AM PDT by HushTX (quit whining)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

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.


14 posted on 08/14/2010 3:58:26 AM PDT by Brytani (There Is No (D) in November! Go Allen!!! www.allenwestforcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazzlite

More like 2% of the population.....


15 posted on 08/14/2010 3:59:22 AM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (The rallying cry of American patriots.....REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jazzlite

>>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.


16 posted on 08/14/2010 4:22:33 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (No Representation without Taxation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: spodefly

>>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.


17 posted on 08/14/2010 4:25:40 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (No Representation without Taxation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

Come on:

Obama backs the Muslims building their Mosque because he is Muslim.

Wright backs the Homosexuals because he is homosexual.

There is no other argument.


18 posted on 08/14/2010 4:33:37 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...

Prop 8


19 posted on 08/14/2010 4:53:55 AM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

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.”


20 posted on 08/14/2010 8:47:44 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

Yep.

But unless this judge is going to be removed from office, all you have is an interesting story.


21 posted on 08/14/2010 9:58:19 AM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

This gay-wad “Judge” is suffering from AIDS dementia.


22 posted on 08/14/2010 12:50:26 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazzlite

No WAY that “gays” are 10% of our population. More like 2%.


23 posted on 08/14/2010 12:52:03 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

Did you all catch that the judge slipped in the opinion that no one can change their “sexual orientation?” That is a theory that is falsifiable by even one homosexual who changes to heterosexual. And since thousands already have, why would people believe that silly canard anymore?


24 posted on 08/14/2010 10:10:26 PM PDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: guitarist

Excellent article!


25 posted on 08/15/2010 9:45:04 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua
(I have known several homosexuals over the years who describe themselves in precisely this manner.)

Really? I've known and worked with a number of gays over the years and have never heard a single one describe themselves that way. Are you hanging out in tranny bars?

26 posted on 08/15/2010 9:54:39 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
I simply can't believe that my life experiences have been different from yours. How can that be? You frigging genius. Act like a grown-up, or Mommie will ban your computer use.

ROFLMFCWAO

27 posted on 08/16/2010 4:16:17 AM PDT by Gargantua (Thank goodness for .357's and Ithaca Riot Guns...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson