We live in a time when Karl Rove and Monica Goodling made a mockery of the DOJ.

You think it is past?

Have a look at the respect for the impartiality of the law, it’s prosecution at least, under Virginia’s AG Cuccinelli, who has refused to leave his law-related post, as he simultaneously seeks political office (the Governorship).

Christie is a product of the Bush era, too. In a way, he’s overtly politicized his appointee, by manipulating him to recuse.

2. Demonstrative judicial temperament, not a fixed position: “if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman’s letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you’d explain your position to me.”

3. A generalized personal interest such as you mention, i.e. his relationship, is not enough for recusal. Think about it. Every judge has generalized personal interest, related to their tax bracket, what car they drive, clean enough air to breath…

I am sure that you agree that Harris referenced one side of the GSE testimony only. And I am sure that you agree that it was his contention that civil unions do not provide the equality the State Constitution mandates.

I am perplexed as how it can be thought that he has not predetermined his opinion on this case. The facts are as he stated. The plaintiff is who he referenced. The individuals are the ones seeking redress.

And finally, if his interests are only the general interests of a gay man, that would seem to be something other than what he himself states.

Recall that much was made of whether Judge Walker personally sought marriage. And this seemed to be a catching point which the appeals courts carefully considered. The idea being that as a gay man he could hear the case but as a man who specifically wanted to marry it was perhaps a personal interest. I’m not entirely sure that I agree, but I do understand the caution behind that thinking.

Harris is not like Walker. Unlike the Prop 8 judge, Harris is quite clear on the subject, saying, “You have met me and my partner of nearly 30 years, Marc, on more than one occasion at various political gatherings. The New Jersey Supreme court has determined that our relationship is entitled to the equal protection guarantees of the State Constitution…”

It is difficult to read this and come to conclusions other than that Harris considers the inability to marry to be a personal right which he is specifically denied. I don’t know exactly that this clearly stated personal interest would be enough to dictate recusal on its own, but coupled with the specific references to the plaintiffs and their testimony, I don’t see this as even a gray area.

These videos were available before the suit was filed, i.e. before the failed lame duck session, as part of GSE’s general advocacy.

To insist that he was referring to a case is probably wrong. It would be, then, considered incidental that he did, because those same people also showed up in the suit (for obvious reasons – it’s easiest).

To pull that one line out and suggest that he’s bias because of that one reference, is to ignore the rest of the e-mail, I think. In other words, it would be a biased reading of what he said. Similarly, if someone mentioned the Ocean Grove nightmare, it would depend on what else they said. Did they reference one side of the complaint, only? Did they give an summary judgement that a court opinion was wrongly decided?

Finally, look at para 455 of title 8, we can conclude that he has no independent, personal knowledge of the facts of their testimony. He’s not personal friends with any of them, that I know.

So, if he has a ‘personal interest’ it is also his ‘general interest’, i.e his civil rights as a gay man.

He didn’t mention them in their role as plantiff, but as general issue advocates. That would be like saying anyone who mentioned the ACLU webpage on this or that issue is disqualified from any pending case in which the ACLU is a plantiff. Too broad, that.

Yes that would be too broad.

But it has about as much in common with the facts of this matter as do apples and pineapples.

Harris did not ‘mention’ the GSE site on ‘this or that issue’, nor is he ‘disqualified from any pending case on which they are a plaintiff’. We would agree on that.

Rather, he referenced the testimony of individuals listed on the GSE site specifically on the matter of whether civil unions are sufficient. The exact plaintiffs. The exact case.

On these real facts – not hypothetical other facts – is how the issue should be approached. And I ask you, Amicus, on these facts, and assuming that the goal is not to ‘let him rule’ but rather to really determine whether recusal is appropriate, how can you find otherwise?

Wouldn’t you object if a proposed justice had referenced, say, the Ocean Grove campground and used them as a cause for their advocacy, and then were not to recuse on that case? I would.

“As a Republican elected official and someone who has worked hard (and successfully) to get Republicans elected in Chatham Borough…”

So it seems we must assume that Harris is biased in favor of Republicans and, more importantly, most generally accepted Republican viewpoints on issues. Will people demand his recusal where those viewpoints are relevant to a case, or are same-sex marriage issues somehow unique?

FTR, Harris’s background appears to not be just in the judiciary:

“As a Republican elected official and someone who has worked hard (and successfully) to get Republicans elected in Chatham Borough…”

I did mention that the fact that the case is filed in superior court is not pivotal to the main question at hand.

It’s a stretch that his mention of GSE is disqualifying. He didn’t mention them in their role as plantiff, but as general issue advocates. That would be like saying anyone who mentioned the ACLU webpage on this or that issue is disqualified from any pending case in which the ACLU is a plantiff. Too broad, that.

Also, it a bit of a stretch to say he is parroting the arguments of the plantiff. His e-mail presents the broaders of arguments, stuff that would never be considered copyright, just general ideas and concepts that have been hashed and rehashed by many people and groups. If plantiff had made some sort of unique argument, maybe…

If the shoe was on the other foot, then we’d have an opinion from someone writing, presumably, about their biblical beliefs and not inviting anyone ‘to explain their (counter) position’, as did Harris. It would probably be old, because they’ve stopped explaining themselves, as their explanations backfired. (Today, we mostly get votes in silence, even from lawmakers normally chatty about issues.)

I suspect such an opinion would become part of the confirmation hearings, with people asking about how a Justice can be relied upon, if they look to the Bible, rather than the State’s Constitution for guidance…