Skip to comments.Homosexual nuptials: A sweetheart deal--Judges ignore conflicts of interest to push radical
Posted on 12/03/2010 5:19:27 PM PST by jazusamo
Complete title: Homosexual nuptials: A sweetheart deal--Judges ignore conflicts of interest to push radical social agenda
Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to disqualify himself from a case challenging California's homosexual "marriage" ban even though his wife has been directly involved in the case. His insistence on serving as one of three judges to consider Perry v. Schwarzenegger is an affront to the rule of law.
The case involves a ban on homosexual "marriages" that was passed by statewide referendum. Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, himself a homosexual, ruled the law unconstitutional, and it now rests on appeal with a three-judge panel which includes Judge Reinhardt. Here's the problem: Judge Reinhardt's wife, Ramona Ripston, is executive director of the ACLU of Southern California (ACLUSC) and its foundation. The ACLUSC has been involved at every phase of the battle in California to recognize homosexual unions as marriages.
The ACLUSC campaigned against the ballot initiative in question. It represented plaintiffs in the effort to overturn the act on state-law grounds. The day that attempt failed, Ms. Ripston announced "a renewed effort to overturn" it. She personally participated in what the California Lawyer publication called "confidential discussions" with the leaders preparing the federal lawsuit now at issue. The ACLUSC filed a motion to intervene in the case on behalf of a separate set of would-be plaintiffs. (The motion was denied.) Under Ms. Ripston's direction, the ACLUSC is serving as counsel for a friend-of-the-court brief in this case.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Awesome graphic. It’s only missing blood relative (I’m not sure how you would represent it).