[9th Circuit Court Judge] Reinhardt refuses to recuse himself in Prop 8 Appeal.

http://howappealing.law.com/Prop8DisqualficationDenied.pdf ^ | 12-2-2010 | Stephen Reinhardt

[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.

[freedomwarrior998]

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.

[kosciusko51]

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

[I am Richard Brandon]

‘Nation of Laws’ folks. Nation of Laws

[SamuraiScot]

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?

[Cyber Liberty]

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?

[MindBender26]

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

[Liberty Valance]

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

[driftdiver]

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

[frogjerk]

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.

[porter_knorr]

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

[Political Junkie Too]

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

[americanophile]

Indeed.

[Brytani]

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;

[Bulgaricus1]

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

[calcowgirl]

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

[massgopguy]

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

[Tzimisce]

...what am I supposed to be surprised?

Decades of voter apathy are costing us.

[Williams]

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.

[OrangeHoof]

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

[Horusra]

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.