Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mahatmakanejeeves

(56,874 posts)
22. Google "Vaughn Walker."
Tue Apr 7, 2020, 07:12 AM
Apr 2020
Vaughn Walker

{snip}

Hollingsworth v. Perry

On January 11, 2010, Walker began hearing arguments in Perry v. Brown. The case was a federal-constitutional challenge to California Proposition 8, a voter initiative constitutional amendment that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, a right which had previously been granted after the California Supreme Court found that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. On August 4, 2010, Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional "under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses" and prohibited its enforcement.

On April 25, 2011, supporters of Proposition 8 filed a motion in district court to vacate Walker's decision, citing Walker's own post-trial statement that he has been in a long-term relationship with another man. They argued he should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship status, and unless Walker "disavowed any interest in marrying his partner", he had "a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case." District Court Judge James Ware heard arguments on the motion on June 13 and denied it the next day, writing that "the presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief." Legal experts noted that similar efforts to remove Hispanic judges from immigration cases or female judges from gender-discrimination cases have also failed in the past.
I can see this. Because if you allow one, you must allow ALL. oldsoftie Apr 2020 #1
So? NT mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2020 #2
So, I dont want to see some half-assed fake religion/cult advertising for more victims. oldsoftie Apr 2020 #14
The Fake Justice was recused so it would have been a 4-4 tie bucolic_frolic Apr 2020 #3
Yes On 4-4 Tie DallasNE Apr 2020 #19
Go for it Traildogbob Apr 2020 #4
Try advertising penis extenders on PTL Club. marble falls Apr 2020 #5
If they're advertised as a cure for "the gay", praise dog. nt JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2020 #6
Maybe we need to advertise brain enhancers, first? marble falls Apr 2020 #7
If they got one of those, sign me up. JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2020 #8
Neither is a government body FBaggins Apr 2020 #9
The Metro Is A Government Entity DallasNE Apr 2020 #10
"Gorsuch needs to read the entire First Amendment." mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2020 #13
Then His Comprehension Stinks n/t DallasNE Apr 2020 #18
Why is Catholic a "conflict" compared to being Jewish or Methodist? oldsoftie Apr 2020 #15
Thomas & Gorsuch Are Unique On The Court DallasNE Apr 2020 #17
We do have the "We hold these truths to be self evident....." in the Constitution. oldsoftie Apr 2020 #20
No, we don't. mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2020 #21
well the Declaration of Independence carries a little weight oldsoftie Apr 2020 #23
I cannot argue with that. I've slipped up like that too. I once started a thread in which I mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2020 #24
Curious... Since Sotamayor is Catholic does that mean she has a conflict? rpannier Apr 2020 #16
Google "Vaughn Walker." mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2020 #22
"The First Amendment requires governments to protect religious viewpoints" No, it merely cstanleytech Apr 2020 #11
How this started: 2018: Metro can ban all religious ads on buses and trains, court rules mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2020 #12
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court won't revie...»Reply #22