Prop 8 Lawyers Seek to Destroy America's Judiciary

Yesterday a team of lawyers sought to undermine the U.S. legal system.

I'm not speaking in hyperbole -- these members of the bar attempted to discredit every black, female, non-christian, or gay judge in the country.

Prop 8 counsel in California are seeking to overturn a court decision because the judge in the case did not recuse himself for being gay before ruling on an issue that affects gay people. They are upset that the judge did not disclose his relationship with a man before determining if Prop 8, famed anti-gay vote of 2008, was unconstitutional -- thereby "benefiting himself" and people like him.

Despite the obvious oversight that the judge in question showed no intention of getting married, this argument has the potential to rock the entire existing legal system.

According to the logic of the Prop 8 counsel, no African-American judge could sit on a case that dealt with discrimination -- including cases where police officers are accused of racial profiling, where schools are accused of excluding students of color, where an individual was not given a promotion because of the color of his or her skin.

According to this damaging logic, no woman could sit on a case where abortion, divorce rights, child support rights (for women), gender discrimination etc. are considered. The same goes for Jewish judges considering freedom of religion issues. And yes, any judges who are gay or have gay family members or friends would also be booted from cases that deal with gay rights issues.

In fact, many Supreme Court Justices would have had to recuse themselves from important cases just in the last decade because some members of the minority group they belong to might benefit from the court's ruling.

This case will be ruled upon today -- I'm hopeful that the court will refrain from setting such a dangerous precedent. But simply suggesting such an argument shows just how misguided and irresponsible the Prop 8 legal team is. And how desperate they are to discriminate against LGBT Americans, no matter the cost to the entire country.

 

Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs

Comments

[Milrepa]

10:36 AM on 06/18/2011

This is a perfect example of why the case should have been left with the voters in the first place. If Prop 8 was so "unconstitutional" how did it make it to the ballot in the first place. Why even vote, is my feeling. A few activists can overturn anything they want.

[addisonsteele]

06:00 PM on 06/20/2011

In general, the courts do not interfere with an initiative campaign before the election because there is always a possibility that the initiative might lose. Prop. 8 is just another one of California's initiatives that violates the US Constitution, sort of like Prop. 14, by which the majority of Californians voted to make it constitutional (under the state constitution) to restrict the transfer of property to minorities through the use of restrictive deed covenants. The US Supreme Court tossed that one out.

[doctorJulia]

10:23 AM on 06/16/2011

Everybody knows that the Mormon church is behind prop 8 and these legal proceedings. The Mormons have no women in any official church capacity and don't even ban polygamy unless some government agency is watching. They also routinely abandon young men along side some rural roads to get rid of them so they don't offer competition for their accumulation of multiple pseudo-wives. None of these statements is contraversial. They seem to revel in their backwardness.

[m66]

03:57 AM on 06/16/2011

This hypocritical, playground logic never stood a chance. Expect to hear the "I called it first!" argument on
appeal.

[johnpw41042]

08:20 PM on 06/15/2011

It just seems that since these lawyers are doomed to go down in defeat that they are trying to take the whole system down with them. They are acting like spoiled children who have not gotten their way and just striking out at everyone and telling all sorts of lies to whom ever will listen.

[lambdin1]

07:01 PM on 06/15/2011

Lawyers would destory their own mothers if they thought they could make a buck!

[talkstocoyotes]

09:17 AM on 06/15/2011

UPDATE: Judge Ware has ruled against the civil rights opponents; Judge Walker's decision stands.

[Bruckley]

09:11 AM on 06/15/2011

the prop-8ers are playing a game they know they'll lose. really quite pathetic.

[looneydoone]

10:25 AM on 06/15/2011

1954 tax exempt 501c3 status was granted religious organizations with the prohibition that they be
"prohibited from addressing in any tangible way, vital issues of the day"

October 02, 2002
The US House of Representatives voted 178-239 to DEFEAT "The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" (HR2357) offered by Rep Walter Jones R-NC

revoke their tax exempt status
support separation between church and State. This group takes them on, successfully (Congress will not touch the 3rd rail of US politics, religion) www.au.org

[showmestable]

06:36 AM on 06/15/2011

BUT it's ok for this judge to OVER RULE the VOTERS?

[Bruckley]

09:09 AM on 06/15/2011

yeah, it's called for in the constitution actually

[TBJ]

09:32 AM on 06/15/2011

Read the transcript of Judge Walker's ruling. He did not make the decision flippantly. It's his job to hear both sides of the argument, and come to a reasoned conclusion, which he did.

And, besides, judges' rulings can be appealed up the court hierarchy. The system works.

[joemondo]

12:52 AM on 06/15/2011

Based on the claims of the Prop8 attorneys, no woman could judge a case about abortion... for that matter, no one could who might ever have a personal interest in any abortion case.

No one who ever wants to make a political contribution could ever rule in a case about political contributions.

[ANGEL53545]

10:39 PM on 06/14/2011

as a judge that gay he should of bowout and the fact he didnt tell anybody even discuss the case with other judge shows he had something to hide.

[joemondo]

12:45 AM on 06/15/2011

His being gay is irrelevant to his job in the case. Try reading the decision by Judge Ware.

[Scott Zwartz]

05:03 PM on 06/15/2011

Try learning facts before expressing an opinion. They all knew he was Gay, but chose to say nothing.

[velvetcookie]

09:48 PM on 06/14/2011

Well I agree with your arguments. I didn't see things this way in the beginning.

[Rebecca Iaquinta]

09:39 PM on 06/14/2011

Then I guess every straight judge would have to recuse himself when ruling on anything to do with a conventional marriage.... like when they get divorced....since he might one day want to get divorced himself and therefore his ruling could potentially benefit him. We really need to get out of other peoples sex lives and take care of our own! The way I see it, if I'm not sleeping with you, then it's none of my business. And for all you bible quoters....here's one for ya..."Judge not lest ye be judged."

[electrosef]

02:46 PM on 06/15/2011

Yeah... what she said! Good one.

[annek85925]

07:46 PM on 06/14/2011

So, we'll use the Prop. 8 proponents logic and say that any judge qualified to preside over the case can't be a married heterosexual man or woman.

[Golyadkin]

09:49 AM on 06/15/2011

Or a Christian.

[LawTalkingGuy]

05:33 PM on 06/15/2011

Or one who wants to get married...

[reynard61]

05:24 PM on 06/14/2011

If you can't argue the facts, argue the Law. If you can't argue the Law, argue the facts. If you can't argue the facts *OR* the Law, attack the credibility of the Judge.

[jabbaciv]

08:44 PM on 06/14/2011

Exactly what happened here. They don't have a case. They don't even do a good job of not having a good case. In fact, the trial that Walker presided over was a showcase of bad case. So they attack the judge.

[groland]

05:19 PM on 06/14/2011

Funny how the same people who see a conflict here have no problem with Clarence Thomas and his wife's TEA party connections. For some, conflicts are seen only when you disagree with the ruling.

[Agentprovokatur]

10:22 PM on 06/14/2011

Remember, it's upholding the law if you agree with the ruling, it's "judicial activism" if you don't.

[NuclearWar]

05:35 AM on 06/15/2011

What about Clarence Thomas wife's tea party connections? Is there a case before the supreme court about the tea party? Does Ginsberg's affiliation to the ACLU present a conflict of interest?

[Scott Zwartz]

05:06 PM on 06/15/2011

Yes, as for Thomas as he ruled on cases where his wife had a professional interest.

What was Ginsburg's role and on whhat case did she rule and did she keep the association secret?

[groland]

07:50 PM on 06/15/2011

The ACLU is a large organization that defends the constitution and the rights of the minority, something our Supreme court ought to be doing anyways. The ACLU has represented every type of minority from David Duke and the KKK to the NAACP and Black panthers. Believe it or not, the ACLU does not actually have a political agenda.

The TEA party is entirely political.