Fundies: "Practicing homosexual" judge responsible for "tyrannical, abusive" judicial arrogance

[marmar]

No surprise that the Fundies have chosen Judge Walker as their target. And all of this dog whistling might stir one of their more deranged followers to some sort of action. ....... From the American Family Association:




Activist: Judge's 'sexual proclivity' compromised Prop. 8 ruling
Charlie Butts and Fred Jackson - OneNewsNow - 8/5/2010 9:45:00 AM


On Wednesday, a judge struck down California's same-sex "marriage" ban as a violation of the civil rights of homosexuals, but a pending appeal of the landmark ruling could prevent same-gender weddings from resuming in the state any time soon.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8 Wednesday, declaring that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves no legitimate purpose and is an "artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices."

While the ruling affects only California, the appeal will go to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over nine Western states. Walker said he would consider waiting for the Ninth Circuit to render its decision before he makes his opinion final and requires the state to stop enforcing the ban. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue. (See earlier article)

Judge should have recused himself

On two separate occasions, voters in The Golden State declared traditional marriage as the law of the state -- once as a state statute and then as a constitutional amendment. Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, calls Walker's decision a tyrannical, abusive, and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance -- and argues that members of Congress should immediately launch impeachment proceedings against Walker.

"(It's an) absolutely outrageous and unconscionable ruling by this federal judge to so cavalierly overturn the expressed will of seven-million voters in the state of California," Fischer offers. "(He) didn't even have the legal right to consider this case. Marriage policy is not established in the federal constitution. Under the Tenth Amendment that issue is reserved for the states. So this judge trampled the Constitution (and) trampled the will of the voters in California."

In a press release yesterday, AFA identifies Walker as a "practicing homosexual" who, for that reason, should have recused himself from this case "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Fischer concurs. ........(more)

The complete piece (of mierda) is at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1113432

[uncommon]

1. So ridiculous - if the judge had been straight and ruled differently they would have thought nothing

of sexual orientation.

Fuck them.

[WillParkinson]

3. If the judges had been straight...

And ruled the same they would have come up with some other reason to gripe.

[uncommon]

4. Of course.

[arbusto_baboso]

2. Yet, these fundies are the same folks who want to use our democracy to essentially destroy

democracy. They want theocracy, yet whine bitch and moan when democracy doesn't go their way. They don't want rights; they want to dictate to everyone else.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. Whether the judge was gay or straight, this is EXACTLY what anyone might have predicted the

reaction would be from groups like the AFA...

The existence of people like this proves to me that there is no god. I cannot imagine that a true "god"
would allow people like the AFA and their ilk to go around saying that they are spreading the word of god.

[old mark]

6. Yet the Fundamentalists who supported Prop 8 all claim to be heterosexuals,

so I guess that is their bias...Plus the hatred inherant in their "religious" beliefs.

The judge's ruling was absolutely right and I doubt there is anything to appeal in his decision. He carefully discussed EVERY POINT in the Prop 8 "case", and found it had no legal merit. Judicial appeal does not come about because you didn't like the ruling, but because there is some reversable judicial error in the original finding...I don't believe there will be such error in this case.

They can not appeal just because they feel like it.

They lost because Prop 8 is not legal, period.

mark

[AsahinaKimi]

7. Ronald Reagan

(according to MSNBC today)Said this judge was "Too Conservative" for his taste, and George Herbert Walker Bush appointed him. If the Freepers don't like it, let them kick dust on Reagan's grave and curse Pappy Bush.

All of them are Haters.. I hope the hate eats away at their insides.

[mikeytherat]

10. First nominated by Reagan, his nomination was supported by Ed Meese and Strom Thurmond,

and opposed by Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy. He was renominated and confirmed by Bush the Elder:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-... /

In fact, Judge Vaughn Walker is a Republican who was first nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan. The unexpected ironies do not stop there. His nomination was stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee over accusations that Walker was too conservative.

Among his opponents were Nancy Pelosi (who described him as “insensitive” to gays and the poor), Ted Kennedy and leading gay activist groups at the time. In particular, they took issue with Walker’s legal representation of the National Rifle Association, chemical companies, and the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that blocked the use of the term “Gay Olympics.” A San Francisco lawyer named Mary Dunlap, who faced off against Mr. Walker in the “Gay Olympics” case, was quoted in The New York Times in 1988 saying, “I think his lack of compassion and inhumanity and coerciveness certainly disqualify him from consideration for the federal judiciary.”

On the flipside, Walker’s defenders included Ed Meese and Strom Thurmond. The outcry at the time was so considerable that it fell to Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush, to re-nominate Walker to the federal bench. At the time, Mr. Walker summed up his beliefs by saying, “Lawyers acting in a professional way must divorce himself from personal views.”

:nuke:
(graphic depicting current state of fundie heads)

mikey_the_rat

[hobbit709]

8. Ah yes, The AFA which sees pornography in men's underwear packaging.

http://juanitajean.com/2010/08/04/first-mens-underwear-at-walmart-now-sears/

[Maru Kitteh]

9. By that standard only women could preside over cases involving men

Wonder how they'd feel about that.

[Touchdown]

11. The writer is Charlie Butts

:rofl:

Yes, it juvenile, but still fun!

[LibertyLover]

12. You know what impressed me the most -

The spokesperson quoted in the article from Concerned Women of America was actually a <gasp> woman! }(

[Jankyn]

13. What's really obnoxious here...

...is that the defense had an opportunity to get Walker to recuse himself, and they knew he was gay, but they thought he was "their kind" of closeted, shame-filled, conservative gay.

Bwah ha ha!

[madmom]

14. Well if he..

"should have recused himself from this case "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." couldn't the same be said for a straight judge?