Will Judge Walker's Decision Hold Up In the Supreme Court?
Filed by: Dr. Jillian T. Weiss
August 6, 2010 7:00 PM

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/08/will_judge_walkers_decision_hold_up_in_the_supreme.php

As has been reiterated by every single commentator on this case, ad nauseam, Judge Walker's decision is the first step on a long road that will culminate in the United State Supreme Court.

But no one is taking much of a position on the real question: Will Judge Walker's decision hold up in the Supreme Court?

That's a question that requires a crystal ball, but there are some indicators that we can use to try to begin to get a handle around this question.

I distrust any analysis that is based solely on the perceived political preferences of the Justices.

My guess is the SC is going to treat this like it was on fire and covered in acid to boot.  They are not going to want to touch it at all.

from what I read, and I'm no lawyer so some of it was over my head, but it seemed like every argument he made was backed up by citing previous cases. The ruling was a masterful bringing together of past decisions on discrimination and on marriage to prove that in particular proposition 8 was discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. He seemed to have made a pretty solid case, besides the fact that exceptionally clever men give me butterflies in my tummy lol

it seemed like every argument he made was backed up by citing previous cases

That's pretty much the pro forma for decisions at this level.  To appeal it, the other side now has to prove that he was either a) wrong on the facts (rare at the appellate level as they don't review facts, but simply take as fact the evidence in the trial) or b) wrong on the law.  i.e. That his reading of what those cases are saying is wrong, or being applied in an incorrect manner.  The fact that he made two separate rulings - one on due process, and one on equal protection - means they now have to argue each one in the above manner.  And, to get it overturned, they are going to have to win both, as finding that it does not violate due process but does violate equal protection (or vice-versa) still leaves it unconstitutional.

As it is, this is exactly what all the state courts who have looked into it said - that it either violates due process, or equal protection, he just said, 'yeah, you're both right.'

Quote from: tekla on August 08, 2010, 08:30:20 AM
My guess is the SC is going to treat this like it was on fire and covered in acid to boot.  They are not going to want to touch it at all.

My thoughts exactly.  I've read a few times both sides think it's going to the SC but I just don't see it.  Walker stuck with the facts in his ruling, something every judge should do.  Any court reviewing this will find it hard to find sufficient evidence to hear it.  And the hot potato aspect of it will make hearing it even less appealing.

Whatever court turns it down will have to answer to the brainwashed minions cry of foul but that's probably a lot better than the alternative.

Whatever court turns it down will have to answer to the brainwashed minions cry of foul but that's probably a lot better than the alternative.

What are they going to do, fire them? 

Quote from: tekla on August 09, 2010, 09:50:24 AM
What are they going to do, fire them?

Essentially.  The court has just overridden the people directly, and in no less a matter than a constitutional vote.  Support for the opposition has reached state-constitutional levels nationwide, and threatens the Democratic grip on the Presidency, which appoints these judges.  Thus, the next few judges could be appointed by Presidents elected by the opposition, and the public opposition may gradually reach levels needed to alter the federal constitution.  Given this challenge to the public vote, and given that opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment has already brought the subject of constitutional re-amendment into the public sphere, it is not unreasonable to expect such retaliation in the extreme case.

We do live in interesting times.

- N

Obama has appointed two kinda liberal judges to replace two really liberal judges, the essence of the SC does not change until he gets to replace one of the conservatives.  And remember, Walker was put on the federal court by Regan, and elevated to the 9th by Bush, hoping to make the 9th less liberal. 

And the whole 'think about the judges' deal gets almost no political traction, it's a red meat deal, but it doesn't sway votes, which in the next election will be focused on economics, and hey, who have the Repubs got ready to run (and win) anyway.  No one really.

Quote from: tekla on August 09, 2010, 09:50:24 AM
What are they going to do, fire them?

Add them to the list of judges they want impeached.   
American Family Association: impeach Prop 8 judge who overturned California gay marrige ban LINK

According to the AFA message posted on its website, Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California should be impeached because:

    * Walker's decision overturning Prop 8 "frustrated the express will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage;"
    * "Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest. "
    * "Federal judges hold office only 'during good Behaviour,' and ...Judge Walker's ruling is not 'good Behaviour.'"

You see, it's wrong to frustrate people especially if you are an open homosexual and you're not on your best behavior.

It's amazing what you can learn on the Internet.  Just ask Hak-Shing William Tang, witness for the defense.

Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.

Which of course, kinda begs the issue, would a hetro guy have had to recuse himself also?  Perhaps we should have left it to the people who read sheep entrails.

Federal judges hold office only 'during good Behaviour,' and ...Judge Walker's ruling is not 'good Behaviour.'"

This one cracks me up.  Really?  Doing you job is bad behavior?  I thought it was trying to recreate Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with a girl scout troop, or taking money for decisions - who knew the decision itself was the bad thing? 

Of course this is what they all said after Brown, after Roe, and to be fair, what a lot of my friends thought after in re Bush v. Gore.  Never happened.

Quote from: Julie Marie on August 09, 2010, 10:42:13 AMIt's amazing what you can learn on the Internet.  Just ask Hak-Shing William Tang, witness for the defense.

This is from the actual court ruling:

Quote from: Tam in a letter to 'friends'This November, San Francisco voters will vote on a ballot to 'legalize prostitution.' This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda - after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children * * * We can't lose this critical battle. If we lose, this will very likely happen * * * 1. Same-Sex marriage will be a permanent law in California. One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hand. 2. Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals. Even if our children is safe, our grandchildren may not. What about our children's grandchildren? 3. Gay activists would target the big churches and request to be married by their pastors. If the church refuse, they would sue the church.

If every child is going to fantasize about a homosexual relationship when they grow up, doesn't this sort of contradict their claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural'? 

1.  The Walker opinion specifically excluded churches.

2.  How is legal prostitution a 'gay' thing?  Are not most professional sex workers women with men as clients?  Yes.  BTW, the vote to legalize it failed.

The San Francisco City government is not 'under the rule of homosexuals.'  Most of us here agree that it's largely ruled by clowns.

Quote from: FairyGirl on August 09, 2010, 11:13:38 AM
This is from the actual court ruling:

If every child is going to fantasize about a homosexual relationship when they grow up, doesn't this sort of contradict their claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural'? 

Every time I see this nonsense I think of Ghostbusters:
Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

That's the kind of stuff these people use to stir up fear.  Too bad it actually works for some.

BTW: I correct myself - Tam was an adverse witness for the Plaintiffs, not for the proponents.

Quote from: Julie Marie on August 09, 2010, 10:42:13 AM
Add them to the list of judges they want impeached.   
American Family Association: impeach Prop 8 judge who overturned California gay marrige ban LINK

According to the AFA message posted on its website, Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California should be impeached because:

    * Walker's decision overturning Prop 8 "frustrated the express will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage;"
    * "Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest. "

Well, in that case, I demand that at least 8/9* judges on the Supreme Court recuse themselves, as they are all open heterosexuals.

*I'll let Elena Kagan stay, since she's only a rumoured heterosexual.

You would think that if they found gay sex all that bad they would INSIST on gay marriage - because nothing kills sex like marriage.

Quote from: tekla on August 09, 2010, 03:04:32 PM
You would think that if they found gay sex all that bad they would INSIST on gay marriage - because nothing kills sex like marriage.

Tell my parents that. >.>;

This'll be a fun ruling to watch play out.  I'm interested to see what happens.

There is really nothing to play out now.  The case will be cited in lawsuits in most states, and the suits will be upheld.  For those that already allow it, nothing changes, California gets to go back to doing them again (for the third, and let's hope, final time) and there will be a federal challenge to DOMA, which will also fall.

There will be an initial flurry - due to pent up demand - after which the numbers will fall to almost meaningless levels.  That's what happened twice now in California, and I expect to see it play out that way again.

Notice the ones that are whining and crying are the Fundies.  Yeah they want to stop the "Gay" agenda ( To give basic human rights ), because is conflicts with the "Fundie" agenda ( To rule by fear and intimidation ).

Notice the ones that are whining and crying are the Fundies

Well yeah, had it gone the other way I'm sure lot of people in here would be sniveling too.

Regarding the fundies, maybe I'm just stupid but how is it that the Jesus Christ Church of the Latter Day Saints, an organization that helped funnel in $30,000,000 into the Prop 8 campaign, was such an integral part of what essentially was a hate campaign?

Jesus Christ, from what I learned in my Catholic upbringing, would have taken that money and used it to put food on the table and clothes on the back of people in need, not waged a hate campaign.  Can you imagine Jesus Christ, sitting in a big office, chomping on a cigar, saying, "We gotta crush them gays!  Go out and twist some arms and round up some loot.  We got a war to fight!"  I don't get it how a Christian organization could ever do such a thing!  I guess I'm just not smart enough to figure that out.

Luckily, we have people like Fred Karger fighting for truth, justice and the American way!

---

Post Merge: August 10, 2010, 12:04:10 PM

---

Getting back to the original question, Ted Olsen was interviewed on Fox by Chris Wallace.  Wallace is good but he was no match for Olsen.  Olsen clearly pointed out marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Any court agreeing to hear this case will have to contend with putting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on trial.

Ted Olson Interview With Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace