Judge Walker Didn't Have to Recuse Himself

[Dalton]

He had no obligation to divulge his personal life, but the haters probably have a dozen silly gambits hidden up their sleeves.

SAN FRANCISCO — federal judge on Tuesday upheld a gay judge's ruling that struck down California's same-sex marriage ban, saying his fellow jurist was under no obligation to disqualify himself simply because he was in a long-term relationship with another man.

In a 19-page decision responding to the first attempt in the nation to disqualify a judge because of his sexual orientation, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker had no obligation to divulge whether he wanted to marry his same-sex partner before he declared last year that the voter-approved marriage ban was unconstitutional.

Keep in mind that Walker's decision is still being considered to see if it was a proper ruling.

[Alyeska]

Its a fair ruling. People already commented that if a gay man cannot making a ruling, than neither can a heterosexual for the exact counter reasons. The judge ruled on the facts of the case, period.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

HA! They are appealing Judge Ware's ruling.

Appeal planned after gay marriage ban upheld in CA
(06-14) 15:44 PDT San Francisco (AP) --

The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban are planning to appeal a federal judge's decision that his predecessor had no obligation to divulge that he was in a long-term relationship with another man when he struck down the ban.

Lawyer Charles Cooper, who represents the conservative religious coalition that put the ban on a 2008 ballot, said he disagrees with the ruling Tuesday in San Francisco by U.S. Chief District Judge James Ware.

Ware upheld former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling from last year that struck down Prop. 8. Ware found Walker could not be presumed to have a personal stake in the case just because he has a same-sex partner.

Cooper says the appeal is intended to defend the will of Californians to preserve marriage as the union of a man and woman.

[ChaserGrey]

As Judge Ware pointed out, it wasn't even a gay-straight issue. If Judge Walker had had to recuse himself because he might someday want to be in a same-sex marriage, that would set an impossible precedent for other judges to follow. Would these advocates say that any judge who owns a house cannot rule on an eminent domain case? God help you if you needed a judge to hear a criminal appeal- under that standard can you *ever* guarantee that a judge won't be affected by what the scope of a given criminal statue might be? Sure, it seems unlikely that a court of appeals judge will be busted for possession of coke, but it's certainly *possible*, and no less valid a hypothetical than Judge Walker wanting to get married.

I have to go with the Prop. 8 opponent who described their case as "absurd on the face". These people are doing themselves no favors.

[SVPD]

Its a fair ruling. People already commented that if a gay man cannot making a ruling, than neither can a heterosexual for the exact counter reasons. The judge ruled on the facts of the case, period.

That doesn't make any sense. A homosexual gains a benefit from allowing gay marriage, a heterosexual gains or loses nothing by preventing it. It's a fair assumption that a gay person is in favor of gay marriage; it is not a fair assumption that a heterosexual is against it.

It would be more fair to say that a person with (presumably religious) convictions against gay marriage should recuse themselves if Walker has to recuse himself because he is gay.

Either position is silly. All judges have their personal views on how the law ought to be. Conflict of interest relies on a specific circumstance that directly affects the person concerned, not a generalized fear that they will rule based on their personal biases. Walker was completely right not to recuse himself.

[Sea Skimmer]

That doesn't make any sense. A homosexual gains a benefit from allowing gay marriage, a heterosexual gains or loses nothing by preventing it. It's a fair assumption that a gay person is in favor of gay marriage; it is not a fair assumption that a heterosexual is against it.

Well no a heterosexual does loose something, if we want to play the highly legalistic game which is what court is. Legal gay marriage means gay people claiming marriage benefits, many of which involve tax breaks and rebates, which means less money for the government to spend on everyone else. Of course this exact same issue is also why religion has no justification what so ever in playing a role in the definition of marriage.... Anyway the judge still gets away with it because conflict of interest is normally considered something serious and direct, not the most vague of connections, and in any case doesn’t matter if a ruling can be shown to be strictly by the book anyway

[SVPD]

That doesn't make any sense. A homosexual gains a benefit from allowing gay marriage, a heterosexual gains or loses nothing by preventing it. It's a fair assumption that a gay person is in favor of gay marriage; it is not a fair assumption that a heterosexual is against it.

Well no a heterosexual does loose something, if we want to play the highly legalistic game which is what court is. Legal gay marriage means gay people claiming marriage benefits, many of which involve tax breaks and rebates, which means less money for the government to spend on everyone else. Of course this exact same issue is also why religion has no justification what so ever in playing a role in the definition of marriage.... Anyway the judge still gets away with it because conflict of interest is normally considered something serious and direct, not the most vague of connections, and in any case doesn’t matter if a ruling can be shown to be strictly by the book anyway

I suppose they indirectly might suffer some minute economic loss, but I doubt very much anyone is seriously opposed to gay marriage because of the minute change in potential government money for everyone else.. especially since spending more money than is actually avaialbe is quite the touchstone of our federal government.

[Setesh]

I suppose they indirectly might suffer some minute economic loss, but I doubt very much anyone is seriously opposed to gay marriage because of the minute change in potential government money for everyone else.. especially since spending more money than is actually avaialbe is quite the touchstone of our federal government.

Money aside there is another reason. See a big part of the case for the gay marriage ban crew is that gay marriage does harm heterosexual marriage. Though they have yet to say how in a way that isn't completely retarded .

On their own logic, straight Judges are just as apt to rule unfairly as a a gay one, just in their favor.

[Edi]

By the logic of Walker's opponents, an ethnically Hispanic judge cannot rule on immigration cases because of conflict of interest, a black judge can't rule on interracial issues etc. etc. The argument is bullshit because the connection must be real and immediate, not a vague "maybe some day" kind of thing.