Who Cares If Vaughn Walker Wants to Get Married?
It’s not surprising that it looks as if the 9th Circuit will reject the farcical argument that Judge Vaughn Walker (who ruled that the Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment) should recuse himself because he’s gay. But this line of argument concedes way too much:
But the 9th Circuit judges stressed there was no proof Walker had any intent to marry, with one, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, noting that he did not marry in the window of time when same-sex marriage was legal in the state — before Proposition 8 was approved by the voters.
This may be true, but it’s beside the point. So what if Walker did intend to get married? Are homeowners disqualified from hearing 4th Amendment cases? Are only judges who pledge never to speak or write in public allowed to rule on 1st Amendment cases? Do judges have to pledge never to buy equities before they hear a securities litigation case? (And, of course, the assumption that only gays and lesbians are affected by same-sex marriage bans is to concede in advance that they’re irrational.) The argument that Walker has to recuse himself is profoundly foolish and profoundly offensive, and the fact that it’s being made in open court is in itself a good argument that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict scrutiny.
true enough. but then, who seriously believes that corporations are people, with all the attendant constitutional rights and guarantees? oh, um, wait………………………..
Seriously it never ceases to amaze me when people try and claim corporations shouldn’t enjoy First Amendment rights. Such a tremendously lame assertion is usually coupled with an equally lame attempt to caricature every corporation as a behemoth like ExxonMobil or BP. Surprisingly such a thing wasn’t attempted in the post to which I am replying, placing it in the minority of such asinine posts. But when you start telling people that groups they support, that actively campaign on political issues dear to them, thanks to the First Amendment rights of which you seemingly think they should be deprived, they generally shut up. Since it is obvious you are referring to the Citizens United ruling, do you honestly believe that corporations(I will only name left-wing oufits as it seems you are on the left) such as the ACLU, the Sierra Club, Emily’s List, The Brady Campaign,etc. shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment because they are corporations? If so, I want to see it in writing. And if you are going to claim they aren’t corporations, you need to do your research as, by law, they are defined as such. Such a corporation was at the heart of the Citizens United ruling. If you really think a group of like-minded people advocating for a common political end, a corporation, shouldn’t have been able to release a video criticizing Hillary Clinton (the issue that was the crux of the case to which you are obviously referring) then you have absolutely no business, at all, discussing rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
There is a reason the ACLU filed on amicus brief in support of Citizens United.
There is a difference between saying that corporations have been granted certain rights that are the same as those inherent in atural personhood and saying that corporations are natural persons. Corporations only have the privileges given to them by natural persons, they do not inherently have any rights, therefore the first amendment does not apply to them.
You kind of forgot one very important argument that should be made: Should heterosexual judges recuse themselves from hearing cases on marriage equality?
It’s also funny that the people most vehemently arguing that Judge Walker should’ve recused himself because he “had an interest in the outcome” are also the same people who see no problem with Clarence Thomas sitting in judgment of cases where his wife stood to make money or with “Christian” judges ruling in cases that involve religion.
You kind of forgot one very important argument that should be made. Should heterosexual judges recuse themselves from hearing cases on marriage equality?
No, that’s what he meant by:
And, of course, the assumption that only gays and lesbians are affected by same-sex marriage bans is to concede in advance that they’re irrational.
Its a logical extension of the “Gays are an interest group with an agenda” thinking that dominates social conservatives.
I’m going to go amateur psychologist here and say that these people are sexually repressed to the point that they completely lack self-awareness. When you are programmed to resist and deny your own sexuality, it becomes easy to look at homosexuals as “Guys who just want to fuck guys”.
In their heads, homosexuality is akin to drug use, and Vaughn Walker is a junky.
Yeah, you probably should have refrained from pop psychology, because man, what you wrote is pretty stupid, and boy is that being generous. I personally don’t oppose gay marriage but the notion that everyone who does is a repressed homosexual is so moronic it is almost surreal.
Please point out where BKB said anything about anybody being a repressed homo? Or are you suggesting that the only possible kind of repressed sexuality is of the superior variety?
I always love posts like yours because it always exposes the hypocrisy you claim to be decrying. Get back to me when a very large portion of the individuals screaming that Clarence Thomas should be recusing himself aren’t the same people claiming that Walker shouldn’t. Hypocrisy is a two way street and I have a distinct feeling you are taking a stroll down it.
Why should Walker excuse himself? Please be specific about exactly why he would have a conflict, while a straight married judge (who will see his sacred institution polluted by icky icky gays if he rules in a certain direction) is not.
What part of GAY-BITY GAY-BITY GAY-BITY GAY-BITY GAY do you not understand?
Indeed. Of course it inexorably follows from conservative legal principles, which hold that anyone who might rule against them is ipso facto incapable of rendering a legitimate judgment. In fact that is the only rule of conservative jurisprudence.
Don’t forget the rule that presidents should show no gender, orientation, racial or religious preferences when nominating a judge and should instead simply choose the One Most Qualified Person, whichever straight white Christian male that happens to be.
And don’t forget when he isn’t a straight white christian male, you should have someone come forth with hilariously dubious sexual harassment claims or you should just filibuster him because you know his nomination might cut into your vote totals with a key constituency, as was the case with Miguel Estrada.
Right on, bro. I mean, really, zing!
you should have someone come forth with hilariously dubious sexual harassment claims
Is there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing? Is there anyone who doesn’t know it’s all a lawyers’ ramp, like “racial discrimination“? You pay a girl a compliment nowadays, she runs off and gets lawyered up. Is this any way to live?
“Of course it inexorably follows from conservative legal principles, which hold that anyone who might rule against them is ipso facto incapable of rendering a legitimate judgment.”
Yeah, sure thing R Johnston, because only conservatives are guilty of that. Give me a gigantic fuc*ing break. Nothing is more hilarious than the cluelessness of people who think only one spectrum of the political aisle engages in behavior they find distasteful.
You’re missing the point, Scott. He’s gay.
gay, gay, gay, gay
icky, yucky, gay
Wait, are you saying that he’s (pause for dramatic effect) – GAY?
YES!!!! Buttseks, buttseks, buttseks, blowjob—G-A-Y.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand what all of the fuss is about having a happy Judge decide this.
I’d rather have a happy Judge decide this than a miserable cocksucker like Scalia.
OH – THAT GAY!
G-A-Y GAY!!
GAY GAY!!!
Sorry, my bad…
Hold on a minute. Are you saying that, in this country, we allow people who engage in non-Jesus-approved copulatory activities to hold meaningful employment?
I used to be a liberal, but upon hearing this shocking news, I plan to vote for Santorum!
GAY?
Glitter and be gay,
That’s the part I play;
Here I am in Paris, France,
Forced to bend my soul
To a sordid role,
Victimized by bitter, bitter circumstance.
Alas for me! Had I remained
Beside my lady mother,
My virtue had remained unstained
Until my maiden hand was gained
By some Grand Duke or other.
Ah, ’twas not to be;
Harsh necessity
Brought me to this gilded cage.
Born to higher things,
Here I droop my wings,
Ah! Singing of a sorrow nothing can assuage.
And yet of course I rather like to revel,
Ha ha!
I have no strong objection to champagne,
Ha ha!
My wardrobe is expensive as the devil,
Ha ha!
Perhaps it is ignoble to complain…
Enough, enough
Of being basely tearful!
I’ll show my noble stuff
By being bright and cheerful!
Ha ha ha ha ha! Ha!
Pearls and ruby rings…
Ah, how can worldly things
Take the place of honor lost?
Can they compensate
For my fallen state,
Purchased as they were at such an awful cost?
Bracelets…lavalieres
Can they dry my tears?
Can they blind my eyes to shame?
Can the brightest brooch
Shield me from reproach?
Can the purest diamond purify my name?
And yet of course these trinkets are endearing,
Ha ha!
I’m oh, so glad my sapphire is a star,
Ha ha!
I rather like a twenty-carat earring,
Ha ha!
If I’m not pure, at least my jewels are!
Enough! Enough!
I’ll take their diamond necklace
And show my noble stuff
By being gay and reckless!
Ha ha ha ha ha! Ha!
Observe how bravely I conceal
The dreadful, dreadful shame I feel.
Ha ha ha ha!
You’re burying the lede. Not only is he gay, he live in San Fransisco! I rest my case.
By this logic, shouldn’t it be only single people who could ever be judges in divorce cases?
Well, Thomas and Alito would have to recuse themselves from any cases involving corporations or conservative groups under such a strict constructionist view.
By this logic, you can’t be an objective, disinterested marriage counselors unless you are a celibate priest.
I disagree. By this logic you can’t be an objective, disinterested marriage counselor unless you’re a straight man. Because women have an agenda, as evidenced by feminism, but men are objective because they’re men.
By this logic you can’t be an objective, disinterested marriage counselor unless you’re a straight man who derives his livelihood from investments, rather than filthy wage-labor.
Added one part you seem to have forgotten.
Bud Abbott was the best marriage counselor ever
Except nobody ever was allowed to get past Third Base.
I don’t know
How on earth did Judge Hawkins get on the federal appellate bench with a mind like that?
… Oh, of course. Another Clinton nominee.
Clinton’s lack of interest in countering 12 years of hard-right judicial appointments is one of the blackest marks of his tenure — or if you don’t buy that, at least one of the longest-lasting black marks. We’ll be stuck with his “moderate” judges for years to come.
And in some wonderful irony, Judge Walker was nominated by Ronald Reagan, only to have the nomination stalled by opposition by a group of Pelosi-lead democrats for, get this, insensitivity to homosexuals.
It took another nomination from the GHW Bush to get him on the bench.
That is pretty funny.
Not really. The man successfully represented the US Olympic Committee against gay activists, then gets publicly drug through the mud as being anti-gay for it, all while being gay and trying to keep his homosexuality a secret.
While his libertarianism may have been a valid reason for opposition, that was terribly cynical move by Pelosi and the other democrats.
First, the Olympics enforces its rights to the term “Olympics” in a very selective manner (see, e.g., the special Olympics), and the enforcement against the gay Olympics was probably routed in homophobia. It’s also my understanding that the arguments made to enforce it relied to some extent on homophobia.
Second, Walker played very, very hard ball during the litigation. He took out a lien on Waddell’s house while he was dying of AIDS, and Waddell was a significant hero to the gay community.
Third, I don’t agree with the common conceit that nominees shouldn’t be judged for the clients they choose or their litigation tactics in their representation. Legal ethical rules create that expectation because it’s great for business(and because it’s allegedly necessary for an adversarial system), but it’s not actually followed in the nomination process (how many public defenders get nominated?). At the end of the day, powerful monied interests can get a lawyer to represent them, and there is no ethical rule that says that a particular lawyer has to give their talents and abilities to representing oil companies in destroying the environment, or cigarette companies that mislead customers, or financial companies that broke investment rules. Walker is responsible for his decision to take on the client, take on the case, and particularly for his litigation tactics in the case (lawyers can actually refuse to engage in certain tactics).
Fourth, as a side-note, I don’t know that a committee should have a “right” to determine how people can use the term “Olympics,” which dates back centuries. Now, I don’t know all the specifics of the case, so I’m going to hold off on judging it too harshly (it’s possible some of the imagery could actually create confusion, though I don’t buy that anyone actually would confuse the “Gay Olympics” with the official Olympics).
Fifth, Walker is a different man than he was two decades ago. I seriously doubt that the Judge Walker of the 1980s or 1990s would have ruled in the same way as the Judge Walker who heard proposition 8 (in part that’s precedent, in part that’s broader social evolution, and in part that’s personal evolution). Personally, I think it’s great that he has grown as a person in those decades (good Judges usually do; the truly horrific thing is those Judges who are so arrogant and close-minded that their attitudes don’t change in decades on the bench).
In sum, I completely understand why gay activists and liberals opposed Judge Walker at the time of his nomination, and they probably made the right call given the information that they had available at the time. It is ironic that he ended up ruling so favorably for them now, but I personally don’t find it objectionable that they targeted him for his representation in this case. Among other things, it probably did a little to discourage other talented, ladder-climbing lawyers from taking anti-gay cases, which I personally think is a valid goal for a gay-rights group to pursue.
And I called it wonderful irony because I have to read stuff like this all the time:
LINK
When stuff like this and this get ignored by people with such a black and white reality.
Links sent my last response to moderation so let me explain something:
I called that “wonderful irony” because I was tole Pelosi was “good” while McConnell was “evil”.
If you look at Pelosi’s actions towards Walker, and McConnell’s actions towards the “al Qaeda Seven”, you can see that decency has some pretty inconsistent allies when it comes to both parties.
Oops. Thank you moderators.
only to have the nomination stalled by opposition by a group of Pelosi-lead democrats for, get this, insensitivity to homosexuals
In the specific case of the Olympics, I’m willing to believe that Walker was just doing his job as an attorney and was unfairly tainted by association with his client (which was, it should be noted, probably acting out of homophobia).
But “get this”? Is your point that he was a closeted gay man, so how could he possibly have been a homophobe? How about you google “Roy Cohn” and get back to us, BKP.
1. Homophobic or not, the USOC has exclusive legal rights to the term “Olympic”, and Walker was representing them.
2. The “get this” dealt with the irony of a judge facing strong opposition in his career for being both biased for homosexuals and against homosexuals.
3. You should read Judge Walker’s opinion from Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
the USOC has exclusive legal rights to the term “Olympic”
The folks who run the Special Olympics will be surprised to hear that. In truth, the USOC has been happy to grant the right to use the name to certain organizations, and deny it to others. It’s not nearly as cut-and-dried as you’d like to think.
By the way, wasn’t Hawkins the guy who wanted the strip search that even Strip Search Sammy Alito wouldn’t declare constitutional not even called a strip search? (Searching…) Yup.
I expect that kind of non-lawyer argument from Lemieux and other commenters here, but I expected more from you, Anderson. Setting aside the silliness of judging someone by a paraphrased excerpt from oral argument printed in the paper, nothing in that very brief excerpt from oral argument “concedes” anything at all, and nothing about that comment from Judge Hawkins deserves that sort of scorn.
I generally disagree with Nieporent , but I have to agree with his point here. I personally find the argument that Walker had to recuse himself ludicrous, even if he did want to get married. However, even given that conclusion, it’s still relevant that Walker didn’t choose to get married when he could and that the party seeking his recusal can’t even prove that he wants to get married now. It’s just further evidence that their argument is ludicrous and unfounded, and they deserve to get pointed questions from the bench on their failure to meet their burden on this factual issue (along with pointed questions about their absurd legal position).
[...] (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}Anderson makes a great point with respect to Michael Daly Hawkins, the 9CA judge who implicitly argued that if Vaughn Walker was [...]
“And, of course, the assumption that only gays and lesbians are affected by same-sex marriage bans is to concede in advance that they’re irrational.”
Related, but distinct point: also concedes in advance that those pushing for the ban have no legal standing in the case.