Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Prop 8 Proponents ask 9th Circuit to overrule Ware on gay judges

Timothy Kincaid

June 27th, 2011

Earlier this month Judge Ware found that Judge Walker had no duty to recuse himself from hearing Perry v. Schwarzenegger simply because he was a gay man in a relationship. Now the proponents of Proposition 8 have appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit.

So, assuming the Ninth doesn’t stamp this appeal with a big red “You’ve Got to be Kidding”, they’ll trot off to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to make the claim – again – that members of certain minorities can’t be judges on matters that impact those minorities.

I am starting to pity Chuck Cooper. When he got into this, he thought that he would simply be arguing theoretical legal positions, not a case of fact. And surely he had no idea that his clients would turn out to have absolutely nothing to defend their position but animus and religious arrogance.

As an attorney, you have to do what is in the best interest of your client. But at some point it has to be both personally and professionally embarrassing to stand up and spout bigotry.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

occono
June 27th, 2011 | LINK

Why are you assuming they won’t stop the appeal?

Timothy Kincaid
June 27th, 2011 | LINK

occono,

Perhaps that’s poor wording. I’m not really assuming that they will or won’t hear the appeal.

Maybe I should have said “So, unless the Ninth stamps this appeal…”

Tony
June 27th, 2011 | LINK

“religious arrogance”

Perfect. That is a great description of the religious right.

Tony
June 27th, 2011 | LINK

@Timothy
I remember something while reading news about the Judge Ware saying something along the lines that attorneys have been reprimanded for making suggestions like this. Do you know of any examples?

Stefan
June 28th, 2011 | LINK

If they take this case I will be shocked. Ware’s ruling was very conscice and will put many justices in complicated positions in future cases.

Hunter
June 28th, 2011 | LINK

It’s another tactic. Cooper, I’m sure at the insistence of his clients, has given up pursuing a case at law and is now trying everything he can think of to obfuscate the issues and delay proceedings, because as the original trial demonstrated quite clearly, he doesn’t have a case and never did. I take this as an indication that Proponents know they are going to go down on the merits in the Circuit court and are doing whatever they can to cast doubt on the original decision.

Timothy Kincaid
June 28th, 2011 | LINK

Tony,

Sorry. No, I don’t know of examples.

Regan DuCasse
June 28th, 2011 | LINK

This is one of those 9th circuit cases that is a lot less ambiguous or a result of liberal thinking than opponents of ss marriage like to think. They might look at the record of the 9th and cite how many cases were overturned in a higher court.
But the convoluted turns THIS is taking is so remarkable it really begs close observation.

Walker’s decision, and in reading the transcripts on how he made it, AND compared to his record on OTHER cases regarding gay people, it’s significant that his overturning of 8 was called into question the way it was.
In grasping at this ONE decision as a factor of Walker’s orientation (while ignoring his entire record and who appointed him), Cooper et al, paved their own case with doom.

Even if we confront the opponents of ss marriage with the most basic of legal reality, they STILL want to recirculate an opinion that has NO basis in actual law.

Most importantly, not singularly, OR collectively can their opinions challenge ESTABLISHED law.

In majority opinions that drive majority votes, the basis of discrimination would ALSO apply to hetero men and women, even if it’s not stated in the state and federal Constitution, nor WOULD it be.
Essentially because these amendments ARE discriminatory, where the REST of any amendments are not.

The most important factor is that the equal standing of ss marriage WITH os marriage does NOT harm or compromise the rights or freedoms of EITHER.
Just as parent couples AND non parent couples do not change the relevance of marriage for both. Nor it’s definition.

Cooper is listening to the complaints of his clients, rather than reading the precedent of law for EVERYONE and WHY such precedents were established.
After a fashion, this amendment is INDEFENSIBLE, and those opposed to gay people in general really haven’t grasped that, and refuse to.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.