Posted on 01/06/2010 8:42:06 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
On Monday, Jan. 11, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will put the people of California on trial for voting against gay marriage.
The case will be a show trial in a kangaroo court. I don't say that lightly of any federal judge, but Judge Walker's extraordinary bias has already been flagrantly on display.
Take the trial itself. The constitutionality of Proposition 8 is not really a matter for a trial of fact. It's a question of law. But Judge Walker ordered one anyway. Why? Ordinarily a trial judge's rulings of fact cannot be questioned by higher courts. So the more of his opinions that Judge Walker can stuff into the box of "trial of fact" instead of "review of law," the more power he will have over this historic case.
Next Judge Walker issued an extraordinary ruling that the private intentions of Prop. 8 proponents -- ideas by definition never communicated to voters -- were properly the subject of this trial. So people who worked on the campaign have been put on trial, subpoenaed for all their e-mails and personal correspondence. This is an enormous personal headache, one which will (as intended) discourage participation in the political process in the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
This jerk should be removed from the bench.
He doesn’t care about the rule of law. He’s going to do what he wants. He is basically saying to you, me and everyone else that your voice doesn’t matter. He knows better than you.
"Oh you nasty boys!"
here is another problem with the courts that is showing up, can’t get around some nutjob judge ruling over facts in your appeal.
Anybody know anything about this judge? How about posting his home address and personal info?
Am I missing something? It doesn't seem that any facts are in dispute. Everyone agrees that California voters passed Prop 8. What "facts" does the judge want to determine?
Why have voters and citizens then? Let the radicals run it all. Who needs a Constitution when totalitarian democrats will tell us how to live and how to think.
He is purposely trying to stack the deck in favor of the homosexuals when this case makes its way to the Ninth Circus and SCOTUS.
Keep in mind that the Ninth Circus is the court that will be reviewing this case. If they uphold this vermin, not only will the voice of the people in California be overruled, but so will the people who live in AK, AZ, GU, HI, ID, MP, MT, NV, OR, & WA (The rest of the Ninth Circuit.)
There are no facts in dispute. The judge merely wants to mess with the facts to stack the deck in favor of the homosexuals.
I wonder if we’ll see something go up to SCOTUS on this before the trial even starts.
Walker - a Judge Ito for the new millennium.
Federal government intrusion, once more.
The lawlessness, violence and chaos resulting from what the federal agents did to CA Prop 187, can now been seen from Las Vegas to Georgia and all points in between.
So now we really have thoughts on trial.
-PJ
Ahhh, but doesn’t his bizarre ruling open the door to allow defense attorneys to question the Judge’s private intentions about the trial before any further procedures begin? That way it goes on the record.
Not really, as a Federal Judge he can pretty much do as he wants. That’s one of the big problems in our system. Federal Judges are dictators.
It is quite obvious that this judge cannot make an impartial decision. Usually in such instances, a judge would recuse himself from the case. Isn’t there any way to prevent this show trial from even happening?
Walker, Vaughn R.
Born 1944 in Watseka, IL
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on September 7, 1989, to a seat vacated by Spencer M. Williams; Confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1989, and received commission on November 27, 1989. Served as chief judge, 2004-present.
Education:
University of Michigan, A.B., 1966
Stanford Law School, J.D., 1970
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Robert J. Kelleher, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1971-1972
Private practice, San Francisco, California, 1972-1990
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
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.