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

Skip to comments.

[9th Circuit Court Judge] Reinhardt refuses to recuse himself in Prop 8 Appeal.
http://howappealing.law.com/Prop8DisqualficationDenied.pdf ^ | 12-2-2010 | Stephen Reinhardt

Posted on 12/02/2010 8:53:05 AM PST by freedomwarrior998

Here, for reasons that I shall provide in a memorandum to be filed in due course, I am certain that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would [not] conclude that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sao Paulo State of the Federated Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 233 (2002) (per curiam). I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so. The motion is therefore DENIED.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; activistjudge; caglbt; cainitiatives; cajudges; dadt; disenfranchise; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; judicialtyranny; lavendermafia; marriage; prop8; ramonaripston; reinhardt; ripston; robedtyrants; samesexmarriage; shadowgovernment; sourcetitlenoturl; stephenreinhardt; willofthevoter
The folks defending Prop 8 filed a motion earlier today seeking the recusal of Reinhardt, (the most notorious activist judge in the country) because his wife gave advice to the people challenging Prop 8. Reinhardt, being the deranged lunatic activist that he is, refused to recuse himself.

Here we have a situation where the spouse of a judge hearing a case, actively participated on behalf of one of the parties. Any judge with any notion of integrity would have walked. Reinhardt refuses to because he is going to unilaterally strike down the marriage laws of every State in the Ninth Circuit.

Folks, this judge and his puppet (Hawkins) are going to overturn the marriage laws of not only California, but every State in the Ninth Circuit. They have already decided the case.

1 posted on 12/02/2010 8:53:07 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Congress should disband the 9th circuit, since they have that power.


2 posted on 12/02/2010 8:57:16 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

‘Nation of Laws’ folks. Nation of Laws


3 posted on 12/02/2010 8:58:32 AM PST by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
the spouse of a judge hearing a case, actively participated on behalf of one of the parties. Any judge with any notion of integrity would have walked. Reinhardt refuses to

He's jumping the shark. Isn't this grounds for impeachment? I don't know who would have standing to make the ethical complaint—Congress, no?

4 posted on 12/02/2010 9:02:30 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
Here we have a situation where the spouse of a judge hearing a case, actively participated on behalf of one of the parties.

This could be interesting. I wonder if Clarenct Thomas would have to recuse himself from any cases?

5 posted on 12/02/2010 9:02:54 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (We conservatives will always lose elections as long as we allow the MSM to choose our candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Why not let gays marry? Why shouldn’t they have the right to be miserable like the rest of us?


6 posted on 12/02/2010 9:21:32 AM PST by MindBender26 (Fighting the "con" in Conservatism on FR since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

He’s also a lifetime member of the national Prig association.


7 posted on 12/02/2010 9:24:01 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

gays can marry, the men can marry any woman, and the women can marry any man. just like the rest of us


8 posted on 12/02/2010 9:35:26 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Why not let gays marry? Why shouldn’t they have the right to be miserable like the rest of us?

Sorry, but my marriage isn't miserable.

9 posted on 12/02/2010 9:39:01 AM PST by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

That was my first thought. Who cares about the spouse and his/her activities. If the judge was giving advice that would be different.


10 posted on 12/02/2010 9:40:10 AM PST by porter_knorr (John Adams would be arrested for his thoughts on tyrants today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
His wife is not just a caring spouse, she is Ramona Ripston, who is the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California until her February 2011 retirement.

-PJ

11 posted on 12/02/2010 9:44:49 AM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

Indeed.


12 posted on 12/02/2010 9:45:40 AM PST by americanophile (November can't come fast enough....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

This Judge is in an obvious conflict of interest and is specifically going directly against the Fed’s own adopted guidelines for Judicial Standards.

http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf

Guide to Judiciary Policy

Vol 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct Pt A: Code of Conduct

Ch 2: Code of Conduct for United States Judges
CANON 3: A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY

The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:

C. Disqualification.
(1)
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a)
the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b)
the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
(c)
the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d)
the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 8
(i)
a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)
acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;


13 posted on 12/02/2010 10:03:57 AM PST by Brytani (There Is No (D) in November! Go Allen!!! www.allenwestforcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani

Give me Curly, Larry & Moe any day over the 9th Circus...


14 posted on 12/02/2010 10:13:11 AM PST by Bulgaricus1 (Fill your hand you son...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brytani

Informative post. Thank you for taking the time to dig that up.


15 posted on 12/02/2010 10:19:22 AM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bulgaricus1

But sometimes Curly, Larry and Moe just provide cover for John, Paul, George and Ringo.


16 posted on 12/02/2010 10:20:52 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

...what am I supposed to be surprised?

Decades of voter apathy are costing us.


17 posted on 12/02/2010 10:23:03 AM PST by Tzimisce (It's just another day in Obamaland.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Not surprising. There are rules on this and he may not have to recuse due to a relative. Still bad form. he wants to make his leftist statement before this goes to the Supreme Court.


18 posted on 12/02/2010 10:28:13 AM PST by Williams (It's the policies, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Was there any doubt? Liberal elites never believe that they never represent a conflict of interest since they are so pure and righteous.


19 posted on 12/02/2010 10:34:47 AM PST by OrangeHoof (Washington, we Texans want a divorce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
You are absolutely correct and that's the point I rarely see in any of these disputes. Gay people are denied nothing. They have the same rights as anyone else. A man can marry a woman, and a woman a man, it matters not their orientation. Gays want NEW rights to be applied to them, codified in US law to legitimize and assuage their guilt laden existence.
20 posted on 12/02/2010 10:41:00 AM PST by Horusra (The Democrat party is now the National Socialist party (nationalize the banks, socialize healthcare))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

In other words she’s a moonstruck, raging Communist, America-hating, decency-hating, Christian-hating, wannabe tyrant.


21 posted on 12/02/2010 10:41:10 AM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Grounds for divorce?


22 posted on 12/02/2010 10:57:25 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Horusra

IMO most homosexuals are prone to self destructive behavior. They want to ‘marry’ to tear something down to fill the emptiness inside them

but perhaps we’re saying the same thing


23 posted on 12/02/2010 11:36:32 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
The fact that he refuses to recuse himself is grounds enough for overturning whatever decision the 9th Circus reaches.
24 posted on 12/02/2010 12:05:29 PM PST by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
"Guide to Judiciary Policy"

Ninth Circuit probably decided that federal judiciary rules do not apply to them.

25 posted on 12/02/2010 1:26:14 PM PST by Bobby_Taxpayer (Don't tread on us...or you'll pay the price in the next election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mojito

In a sane world, it would be. It our world, it will not be. Judges rule by fiat.


26 posted on 12/02/2010 1:38:06 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Very good point and well-said.


27 posted on 12/02/2010 3:23:14 PM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

If I were defending the law, I would refuse to even show up to court because the outcome has already been decided and then I would appeal.


28 posted on 12/02/2010 5:37:44 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; freedomwarrior998

.

Judge REINHARDT =

Longtime friend of the CLINTONS =

No “Under GOD” in our Pledge of Allegiance

.

For...

the Enemy is now within,

...always has been..?

.


29 posted on 12/02/2010 8:55:28 PM PST by ALOHA RONNIE ("ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer/Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.lzxray.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

RAMONA RIPSTON HAS A RECORD OF SUPPORTING COMMUNIST PARTY F FRONTS AND CAUSES THAT GOES BACK ABOUT 4 DECADES. A CHECK WILL PROBABLY SHOW THAT SHE SUPPORTED TROTSKYITE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY FRONTS, esp. the Political Rights Defense Fund..

Go to www.Keywiki.org, find the search box on the Left side of the Main Page, and enter her name. See if a page on her shows up, or just links to where her name has been mentioned in far-left groups and activities.

I thought she was married to Maoist Henry DiSuvero or did he die?


30 posted on 12/02/2010 9:14:25 PM PST by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

I’m not surprised he didn’t recuse. It sounds like he should’ve.


31 posted on 12/03/2010 5:21:24 AM PST by newzjunkey (expired "Bush taxcut" = Obama Tax Increase)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Why not let gays marry? Why shouldn’t they have the right to be miserable like the rest of us? (Kinky Freidman)

Your marriage might be miserable... but, speak for yourself...

If you have to tell a grown man that babies will not magically emerge from his rectum he is insane.

32 posted on 12/03/2010 5:55:03 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

It was, of course, a joke.


33 posted on 12/03/2010 6:48:21 AM PST by MindBender26 (Fighting the "con" in Conservatism on FR since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Can’t the Yes-on-8 folks appeal this obvious conflict of interest to a higher Court, like the Supremes? Why must the judge in question be the one to recuse himself of his own accord? He obviously has an agenda.


34 posted on 12/03/2010 3:47:18 PM PST by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Why not let gays marry?

Because it's not possible; not any more than two "female" or "male" plumbing parts can fit together.

I know the old joke you mention here, but it's getting awfully stale.

35 posted on 12/03/2010 3:49:55 PM PST by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | 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