Thursday, August 12, 2010

Vaughn & State Plus 8

It may be only a matter of hours before a higher court intervenes, but after hearing arguments, Judge Vaughn Walker has ordered the state to issue same-sex "marriage" licenses as early as next week. The decision to shove Proposition 8 aside so quickly only heaps more outrage on a judge who should have never been allowed to consider the case in the first place. By lifting the "stay" on marriage licenses, he's attempting to plunge the state- and, by extension, the country--into deeper legal chaos just to satisfy his own radical agenda. Even supporters of counterfeit marriage like John Yoo argue that Walker is traumatizing the country by elevating himself above "the collective wisdom" of millions. Once again, this judge has disregarded the will of the people by interpreting the U.S. Constitution in a way that imposes his own personal beliefs on the state.

Fortunately, the attorneys expected this after his wild ruling and have already filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking for them to intervene. If the judges stick by Walker's order, our side will immediately file a motion with Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, who is the Circuit Justice over the Ninth Circuit. The odds are good that Kennedy will grant the stay or that the full Court would grant the stay. Either way, Judge Walker's dream of forcing same-sex "marriage" on the state by August 18 is a distant one. Few courts--including the liberal Ninth Circuit--should see Walker's decision as anything but irresponsible.

Ed Whalen, the judicial guru behind NRO's "Bench Memos" says the chances of thwarting today's order are strong. "If the [Ninth Circuit Court] refuses to impose a stay pending appeal, then it will be up to the Supreme Court to, once again, put an end to Walker 's lawlessness--this time, I would think, unanimously." Like so many legal experts, Whalen warned about Walker's impartiality before the original ruling was ever handed down. From the judge's push to televise the case to allowing same-sex activists to serve as "expert witnesses," his personal agenda has been clear from the very beginning. If Walker has a long-term male partner (as the LA Times confirmed eight weeks ago), "then the question arises whether Walker himself has any interest in entering into a same-sex marriage in California," Whalen says. "If he does, then the provisions of federal law requiring that a judge recuse himself when he knows that he has 'any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.'"

Even the ultra-liberal San Francisco Chronicle, which broke the story on Walker 's sexuality, agrees. In an op-ed published this week, law professor John Eastman argues that this judge compromised the "public's confidence in the judicial process." His "failure to disqualify himself or at least to disclose his potentially disqualifying relationship to the parties requires that the opinion in the case be vacated and a new trial conducted before a different judge... Judge Walker has unilaterally neutered the votes of more than seven million Californians. A contentious step under the best of circumstances, such a decision should only be rendered, if at all, by a judge whose impartiality is beyond reproach. Judge Walker's, unfortunately, is not."

No comments: