Prop 8 Defenders Attack Walker Ruling for "Bias"

In what is a dangerous precedent form of attack on the ruling of District Court judge Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the defenders of Proposition 8 attack Walker as having a conflict of interest since he is gay. Using this theory, no black judge could rule on a case that involved issues important to black Americans, no woman could rule on a case involving women's issues, no Hispanic judge could rule on a case involving Hispanics and no Catholic judge could rule on a case involving the Catholic Church. Turned around, it would also mean no anti-gay judge could hear a case involving gay rights since they could not be impartial so at the Supreme Court level, Scalia, Thomas and others might need to recuse themselves. On a personal level, it would mean I am entitled to a new divorce trial because my judge was a raving homophobe. The argument, were it to be successful would cause havoc and would allow disgruntled litigants to attack judges regularly. Here are highlights from the Advocate on this latest bullshit from the haters:
*
Retired U.S. district judge Vaughn R. Walker’s recent acknowledgments that he is gay and in a long-term relationship are grounds for overturning his landmark decision in the federal Proposition 8 case. Or at least that’s what the ballot measure’s backers argued in a Monday court filing, described by one opponent as “desperate and absurd.”
*
In the 26-page brief, filed in U.S. district court in San Francisco, Prop. 8 supporters argued that Walker should have been disqualified from deciding the case and that his opinion should be tossed, in part because of his “long-term committed relationship [and] his failure to disclose that relationship at the outset of the case.” Those alleged omissions “give rise to a genuine question concerning [his] impartiality,” attorney Charles J. Cooper wrote.
*
Opponents of Prop. 8 were quick to condemn the Monday briefing as a stunt lacking in any merit. "This motion is yet another in a string of desperate and absurd motions by Prop. 8 proponents who refuse to accept the fact that the freedom to marry is a constitutional right," American Foundation for Equal Rights board president Chad Griffin said in a statement.
*
"They're attempting to keep secret the video of the public trial and they're attacking the judge because they disagree with his decision,” Griffin continued. “Clearly, the proponents are grasping at straws because they have no legal case. All of this underscores the proponents’ animus and homophobia, which was the driving force behind Prop. 8 in the first place.”
*
The legal team that successfully argued against Prop. 8 at trial last year will file a reply brief in the matter, Griffin said.