Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported:
Court and legal analysts have said that it is highly unlikely that ProtectMarriage's bid to have Judge Walker's ruling vacated will succeed.
In a court filing, the sponsors of the ban on gay marriage, ProtectMarriage, asked the chief judge of the federal court in San Francisco to nullify last August’s ruling by former U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who retired earlier this year.Judge Walker disclosed earlier this month after he had retired from the federal bench that he was Gay. Walker has said that he never had considered removing himself from the case as he felt that there was no conflict of interest.
ProtectMarriage said Walker should have disclosed his involvement with his male partner before presiding over the marriage trial because it constituted a conflict of interest.
“Judge Walker’s 10-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires,” ProtectMarriage argued in the legal filing.
Court and legal analysts have said that it is highly unlikely that ProtectMarriage's bid to have Judge Walker's ruling vacated will succeed.
Posts
2 comments:
Of course if this does succeed it will just about kill any kind of judicial decision of any kind, as each judge is a human being and therefore will always have some aspect of that to create a supposed 'conflict of interest'.
Let's consider that if a hetero-sexual judge had made the opposite ruling, that judge would then also have been open to the same accusation. Sex crimes? Well, unless the judge was neutered before puberty, there is an obvious bias. It just goes on and on. Ludicrous.
Well said. All judges in future, when hearing any case of a sexual nature, must now recuse themselves unless they can show that they have never had a sexual thought or experience.
Post a Comment