Skip to comments.[9th Circuit Court Judge] Reinhardt refuses to recuse himself in Prop 8 Appeal.
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.
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.
Congress should disband the 9th circuit, since they have that power.
‘Nation of Laws’ folks. Nation of Laws
He's jumping the shark. Isn't this grounds for impeachment? I don't know who would have standing to make the ethical complaintCongress, no?
This could be interesting. I wonder if Clarenct Thomas would have to recuse himself from any cases?
Why not let gays marry? Why shouldn’t they have the right to be miserable like the rest of us?
He’s also a lifetime member of the national Prig association.
gays can marry, the men can marry any woman, and the women can marry any man. just like the rest of us
Sorry, but my marriage isn't miserable.
That was my first thought. Who cares about the spouse and his/her activities. If the judge was giving advice that would be different.
This Judge is in an obvious conflict of interest and is specifically going directly against the Fed’s own adopted guidelines for Judicial Standards.
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:
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
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;
the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judges spouse or minor child residing in the judges 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;
the judge or the judges 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
a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
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 judges knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;
Give me Curly, Larry & Moe any day over the 9th Circus...
Informative post. Thank you for taking the time to dig that up.
But sometimes Curly, Larry and Moe just provide cover for John, Paul, George and Ringo.
...what am I supposed to be surprised?
Decades of voter apathy are costing us.
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.
Was there any doubt? Liberal elites never believe that they never represent a conflict of interest since they are so pure and righteous.
In other words she’s a moonstruck, raging Communist, America-hating, decency-hating, Christian-hating, wannabe tyrant.
Grounds for divorce?
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
Ninth Circuit probably decided that federal judiciary rules do not apply to them.
In a sane world, it would be. It our world, it will not be. Judges rule by fiat.
Very good point and well-said.
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.
Judge REINHARDT =
Longtime friend of the CLINTONS =
No “Under GOD” in our Pledge of Allegiance
the Enemy is now within,
...always has been..?
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?
I’m not surprised he didn’t recuse. It sounds like he should’ve.
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.
It was, of course, a joke.
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.
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.