Home » Judge Walker and the evidence

Comments

Judge Walker and the evidence — 24 Comments

  1. In normal times this story would be an absolute outrage. Nowadays….It’s just more of the rapid fire corruption courtesy of liberals.

  2. Dr. Sanity is back! She has a wonderful essay, BETWEEN BRAINS, describing the destruction wrought when a society makes a fundamental error in ethics. This passage goes a long way to explaining Judge Walker and his ilk:

    To the degree that the “selfless” do-gooder type has significant to unlimited political power to manipulate the market or economy for their “compassionate” and glorious utopian fantasies (and along the way, of course, to personally enrich themselves) then they become a real danger to the entire society. This type of malignant narcissist is the hallmark of the socialist/communist/collectivist society, and theoretically has less room to indulge their grandiose selves in a democracy. But not always, as the citizens of the U.S. have come to appreciate.

  3. Walkers guilty of malfeasance in office, he should be immediately removed and if as a federal judge he cannot be removed the system desperately needs changing. They are not Gods and no impartial review of his behavior can fail to conclude that he has betrayed the public trust. Even the Ninth Circuit(!) has now effectively rebuked him, it’s time justice was served.

  4. Walkers guilty of malfeasance in office, he should be immediately removed and if as a federal judge he cannot be removed the system desperately needs changing.

    Removing a Federal district court judge would necessitate impeachment and conviction, the Alcee Hastings dipsy-doodle.

    At a minimum, he should be censured, ideally by Congress, for abusing his position and giving at least the appearance of impropriety. He really should have recused himself, as he was a party at interest, or could be seen to be such. His failure to do so was inexcusable.

  5. OB,

    Then impeach and convict. Make it the very first piece of Congressional business after the mid-terms. Until there are consequences for activist judges willing to eviscerate the Constitution and betray their oath of office, they will feel free to continue to do so.

    As a party of interest, he didn’t recuse himself, he’s demonstrated through his behavior a complete and total betrayal of impartiality and the only reason not to impeach is for fear of raising the ire of gays and the left.

    They took the ‘gloves off’ and ‘started the ball’, it’s up to us to finish the fight. If we can’t convict because of the current laws, change the laws to hold judges responsible, not for their rulings (people can honestly disagree) but for their behavior.

  6. Code of Conduct for United States Judges

    Canon 2A. Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

    An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.

    Doesn’t look good, Vaughan. Not good at all.

  7. Judge Walker’s behavior seems fairly normal to me, especially in a country that appears to be trying to institutionalize sodomy as a viable lifestyle and worldview.

    [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis – Psychosis (from the Greek “psyche”, for mind/soul, and -?s?? “-osis”, for abnormal condition) means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a “loss of contact with reality”. People suffering from psychosis are described as psychotic.

    People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and thought disorder. Depending on its severity, this may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the daily life activities.]

    HOWEVER, if a person were to step away from that particular psychotic paradigm of Judge Walker and enter back into a sane civilization, then perhaps he should be striped of all influence he is able to dictate over society.

    ALSO, I find it strange in a country that seems to exercise great extremes attempting to deny the efficacious presence of the Judeo-Christian God they should prostitute themselves to the fickleness of written law. Why should scribbled ‘laws’ by self-actualized apes trump basic common sense?

  8. (An aside – thanks to Matthew M for the heads-up on Dr. Sanity!)

    Once again, I go back to the argument that if the State wants to give legal status to same-sex relationships, they MUST come up with a word other than “marriage” to do so. “Marriage” has been understood for centuries as one-man/one-woman. Its definition is set; certain; “carved-in-stone”, if you will. If -God forbid- we let Progressives start revising what words mean, we WILL wind up with new and unpleasant definitions for “legal” and “vote” and “rights”. We WILL wind up in a world where “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery”.

  9. ANM: I have been saying exactly the same thing for years — if we are to grant legal status to same-sex relationships, call it something else. Calling it marriage is like deciding one day to call a dog a car. Some people might like it, but it makes no sense linguistically or any other way.

    American did the same thing at the height of the so-called women’s liberation movement by coming up with the title “Ms.” for a woman whose marital status you don’t know or don’t want to convey. We can do it again.

    In order to push our position, though, we need an alternative word. I have suggested “farriage,” as in “John and Bruce got farried Saturday.” Much shorter than “John and Bruce established a civil union Saturday.” And less intrusive than “John and Bruce got same-sex married Saturday.”

    We also need a term to describe a man’s husband or woman’s wife I think. I’m open to suggestions on these. F

  10. if we are to grant legal status to same-sex relationships, call it something else. Calling it marriage is like deciding one day to call a dog a car. Some people might like it, but it makes no sense linguistically or any other way.

    Exactly. Iron and Helium are both elements in the periodic table, but you can’t call helium iron or vice versa.

  11. We also need a term to describe a man’s husband or woman’s wife I think.

    This makes a presumption that today’s “husband” isn’t tomorrow’s “wife,” and vice versa.

  12. I think Spain decided a few years ago that birth certificates should no longer identify the father and mother, substituting instead parent #1 and parent #2. Walker needs to see a shrink if he can’t see the difference between men and women. We are supposed to be so sensitive to idiots like him, but I’ve seen very little evidence that gay activists bother to try to put themselves in the place of women who go through 9 months of pregnancy. Nor do they talk much about the well-being of children. It is all a manifestation of extreme narcissism.

  13. ELC: I’m not sure what happened to Olson, but he is a big champion of same sex marriage. He believes it to be a 14th Amendment issue. I am under the impression he is sincere in his support, rather than just interested in money and selling himself to the highest bidder.

    Olson lost his wife on one of the 9/11 airliners; had to be highly traumatic. I also read somewhere (don’t have time to find the link right now) that his new wife is a liberal Democrat. This latter may have had some effect on his viewpoints.

  14. It is all a manifestation of extreme narcissism.

    expat, precisely. Think Hollywood scum celebrities adopting Third World kids as fashion accessories for their kennels households.

    You can imagine the phone conversation:

    “Whaddya got there, Third World government official? Ah, gimme a baker’s dozen. Assorted, of course. Yes, please, priority shipping, care of my agent. I need ’em by the time of my press conference.”

  15. I also read somewhere (don’t have time to find the link right now) that his new wife is a liberal Democrat.

    I’m afraid to ask, but is that…uh…”wife-wife” or “sorta wife, by some people’s reckoning?”

  16. Pingback:Oh Them Awful Faggots | Mythusmage Opines

  17. Read the post from ‘mythusmage’ — it is to laugh. Principled objection is now bigotry, according to him/her.

  18. …..your twisted rendition fools no one…..there was NO evidence produced by the proponents to back their claim of “social and scientific studies” documenting the harms associated with gay marriage and it was to that fraudulent misrepresentation made by the proponents that Walker was inquiring. While lawyers may argue Blackstone’s legal precepts, those precepts are not cast in stone and do not reflect the changes and evolution described by Walker and premised upon the research and Evidence offered by the plaintiff’s experts. The proponents really missed the thrust of this case…..while the challengers carefully showed the evolution which has occured in marriage, the proponents were quoting a 1750’s English Jurist……really bright argument to make!

  19. Wayne: It is actually your twisted rendition, although unfortunately that rendition may fool quite a few people. At any rate, this post is not about my rendition, it is about the rendition of Ed Whelan, whose credentials establish his bona fides as a legal authority (although I am relatively certain you will discount them, since he is a conservative).

    Moreover, I happen to have worked in the field of social science research, and have a graduate level degree that required me to learn a great deal about it. Social science research is inadequate to the task of proving or disproving what effect same sex marriage has on society, and certainly not enough time has elapsed in any country to have relevant long-term data on the question anyway. For what it’s worth, however (and I don’t think any of the evidence pro or con is worth much), there is evidence (not introduced at trial, as far as I know) that gay marriage does have a negative effect on the institution of marriage in general (see this).

    Furthermore, I’m not even against gay marriage. I am for the right of each state to regulate it as it sees fit, and I’ve stated that in other posts on the subject.

  20. Wayne, any chance that this ruling could affect you personally? Is that even remotely within the realm of possibility?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>