Posted on 12/01/2010 9:47:10 PM PST by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO -- Sponsors of California's ban on same-sex marriage asked a liberal federal appeals court judge Wednesday evening to disqualify himself from the panel that will review the ban next week because of his wife's leadership role in the American Civil Liberties Union.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" because his wife, Ramona Ripston, is an outspoken opponent of Proposition 8 and has taken part in legal proceedings to overturn the ballot measure, lawyers for the measure's supporters told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter who is generally considered the court's most liberal member, is on a three-judge panel announced Monday for the Dec. 6 hearing on the constitutionality of Prop. 8.
If he disqualified himself, another judge would be chosen at random, and the hearing would probably be postponed.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
“asked a liberal federal appeals “
The Chronic actually called a liberal judge, liberal? I am confused.
SF: Mamby-Pamby Land.
What's funny is the answer to any gay couple's plight is contained in two words found in ACLU- Civil Union.
What's not funny is breaking with a tradition where marriage is strictly between a man and woman as it will have destructive repercussions greater than dismantling market-driven health care and replacing it with Cuba-style care- as both are designed to scrap proven institutions in favor of something altogether anti-Western, unproven, and dangerous.
With every passing year we slip further into a judicial oligarchy. These clowns have no business imposing their legislative will.
Hopefully I am wrong and the booting of three Iowa judges over the same issue is the beginning of trend.
If he refuses to recuse himself—do they then have grounds to
IMPEACH him for violation of the Judicial Code-something about a Judge ought not do anything that would suggest his/her/its
ability to give impartial judgement has been impaired.Being married to any communist or atheistic member of the ACLU
would seem to endanger ones ability to impartial judgement/
even reasonable judgement.Didn’t Harry Truman once say in Denver that a man who would lie to his wife ought not be trusted to not lie to the people of this great nation.”?Why should the concept be different for any Judge-es verdad they are appointed idols.
More on Reinhardt:
When I read the latest affront to civilization of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (dubbed the 9th Circus, by its critics), I recalled the words my old friend Rabbi Mayer Schiller – Talmudic scholar and hockey coach – pronounced at a conservative conference a decade ago: “Liberalism isn’t a political philosophy. It’s a vile combination of sickness and evil.”
That’s the only way to describe the 9th Circuit’s recent attack on parental rights – a thing to be abominated, excoriated and placed in the same category as the Spanish Inquisition, Jeffrey Dahmer’s cookbook and photographs by the late Robert Mapplethorpe.
The court held that public schools can expose your children to any depravity, can erotically indoctrinate them, can sexualize them when they’re barely out of diapers – and you can’t do a damn thing about it.
The case involved a questionnaire distributed to 7- to-10 year-olds in the Palmdale, California school system. The survey asked students to rate how often they thought about “touching my private parts too much,” “thinking about other people’s private parts,” “having sex feelings in my body” and so on. Schools that can’t teach kids how to tie their shoes are really into sexual instruction.
The interrogation was designed to elicit highly personal information to be used to turn children against parental values and make them compliant citizens of the sexual utopia the left has been constructing for half a century.
On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit dismissed a suit by parents against the school district. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Stephen Reinhardt (Robespierre meets Kinsey) declared that parents have neither due process nor privacy rights when it comes to sexual brainwashing.
Reinhardt also was the author of the 2002 decision in which the 9th Circuit held that it was unconstitutional for students to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “one nation under God.” In part, this was based on so-called church/state grounds, but also because it supposedly violated the rights of atheist parents to transmit their values to their children.
Thus, examining the rulings side by side, Reinhardt believes exposing children to God (in the form of four words in the Pledge) violates parental rights, but conducting sexual interrogations — over parental objections — does not. Simple explanation: God threatens the left’s agenda, sexual indulgence facilitates it.
In the Palmdale decision, Reinhardt decreed: “There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.” Further, “We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy rights to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children are exposed as enrolled students.”
Roll it around on the tongue to fully savor the absurdity of Reinhardt’s position. His honor is saying that nowhere in our long history or experience as a free people, or in the concept of “ordered liberty” – from the Bible to the Magna Carta to the Constitution — can the court find a right of parents to guide and direct their children’s upbringing.
http://www.donfeder.com/articles/0511parentsrights.pdf
If he refuses to recuse, that issue can be taken up on an interlocutory appeal and the case is stopped.
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.