Judge to a bunch of assholes on California: Suck it.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

That said, it really is shitty that Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown aren't appealing this themselves. Say what you will about the whole idea of "the will of the people," surely it deserves a more zealous defense than it's getting here. If the law is unconstitutional, so be it, but why not exhaust all options on the behalf of the people you were elected to represent and let the appellate judges worry about constitutionality?

They were elected to their positions, and they now act in those positions. They see no gain in defending it. It's a waste of resources and a waste of time. It's not "really shitty." I just cannot wrap my head around some of the things you say.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Then you elect new people. That's why there are terms and elections and appointees, so laws aren't constantly changing like crazy - a very important part of any law. That is precisely why SC judges sit on there for life, because it slows the change of laws to counteract fickle people. This is extremely basic.

What does slowing the rate laws are changed have to do with anything, especially here, where the inaction of elected officials is actually hastening a change in the law?

Just because the people of California can vote in someone who'll actually do their job and defend the laws of the state zealously doesn't make it any less shitty that the people in office now aren't doing it.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

They were elected to their positions, and they now act in those positions. They see no gain in defending it. It's a waste of resources and a waste of time. It's not "really shitty." I just cannot wrap my head around some of the things you say.

Not defending a popularly enacted law of the state to the maximum of their ability is lazy, plain and simple. It's tantamount to a public defender who thinks his client is probably guilty refusing to file appeals after a guilty verdict. There's a lot to be said for seeing the entire process through to the bitter end if only just to reinforce the integrity of whatever decision gets made. Otherwise, it looks like the stated will of the people got overturned not by the strength of the law or Constitutional imperative, but rather because elected officials gamed the system to their own ends.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

It's tantamount to a public defender who thinks his client is probably guilty refusing to file appeals after a guilty verdict.

you make the worst analogies ever.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

you make the worst analogies ever.

How is it not apt?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

How is it not apt?

they didn't represent the proposition in the initial trial. why would they have to pick it up on appeal? because butthurt, fear-mongering whackjobs want them to (and by now, that's all that's realistically left)?

if you're talking more about the initial decision not to defend it, then that's a different discussion, i imagine. but i didn't hear too much anger ginned up about it when that decision was made.

[Eulogy]

not to mention the fact that jumping in to defend it would be pretty difficult anyway. no one would buy any of his legal reasoning. it'd be a disingenuous circus. also, there is no way to defend it, as the prop 8 trial displayed pretty beautifully.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

they didn't represent the proposition in the initial trial. why would they have to pick it up on appeal? because butthurt, fear-mongering whackjobs want them to (and by now, that's all that's realistically left)?

Technically they still are the named defendants and party to the case. They can pick it up anytime they want.

if you're talking more about the initial decision not to defend it, then that's a different discussion, i imagine. but i didn't hear too much anger ginned up about it when that decision was made.

I think it all falls in under the same umbrella. I just think it's even more of a shame now because an appeal would get this issue in front of a court that, even if not less partial, would at least try to couch their decision-making on Constitutional law and not whatever it was that Walker was doing. Really, now that I've read it more closely, Walker's opinion is a really flimsy piece of work. There is quite a bit of caselaw (some of it that was supposed to be binding on the district court) that is directly on point with this case that blatantly contradicts some of his more sweeping legal conclusions. He didn't even bother to explain, distinguish, or even mention any of them. Walker's opinion reads as though this is the first time a federal court in his circuit (or any other) has ever dealt with gay marriage, which is convenient to say the least.

not to mention the fact that jumping in to defend it would be pretty difficult anyway. no one would buy any of his legal reasoning. it'd be a disingenuous circus. also, there is no way to defend it, as the prop 8 trial displayed pretty beautifully

Difficult to defend? Probably. Impossible? Not really. But that's all beside the point. I just think it serves the interest of good government for the constitutionality of a law to be determined in as thorough a manner as possible, especially when it comes to overruling a popular vote. I just don't see how it's in anyone's interest to let an opinion as sloppily put together as Judge Walker's really be the last word on the rights of anyone, gay or straight.

[Eulogy]

you're really the only person in the world who is this harsh of a critic of the ruling. but that's neither here nor there i guess.

and if it's possible to legally defend prop 8 at this point, please tell me how. highly qualified and highly paid attorneys defending it sure as shit couldn't figure it out.

[Eulogy]

Scholars: Prop 8 Ruling May Be Tough To Overturn : NPR

Wednesday's ruling in California overturning Proposition 8 has been hailed by legal scholars as a great opinion. Whether or not they agree with the decision on a personal level, many scholars say the ruling from Judge Vaughn Walker may be tough to overturn on appeal.

but hey corganist says it sucks

[Order 66]

corganist says a lot of things

[Order 66]

gimme the lube boys. and grease my pole. I wanna get lost in that glory hole. and drift away...

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Scholars: Prop 8 Ruling May Be Tough To Overturn : NPR



but hey corganist says it sucks

I never said it would be overturned. In fact, I think I said a couple times already that it probably won't be. But if it does get upheld by a higher court it isn't going to be because the justices read Walker's opinion and say "We agree with everything this guy said." The reason Walker's opinion sucks is not because it's necessarily wrong in it's broad assumptions that Prop 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. He's probably right on that much. The reason the opinion sucks is because it only barely scratches the surface of what it takes to make this newfound right to gay marriage mesh with prior federal jurisprudence. Walker never once did anything to distinguish his case as a matter of law from earlier federal cases that found no right to gay marriage, or cases that say homosexuals are not a suspect class, or cases that say strict scrutiny does not apply to homosexual discrimination. These are not inconsequential things, and it is imperative that they be addressed if any intellectually solid argument is going to be made to establish a new right to gay marriage. Walker did not even try to do this, and as such his opinion as it stands is pretty flimsy support for the right to gay marriage.

Is that enough to get it overturned? Not really. Any higher court with a competent non-ideologue judge writing the opinion is going to ignore all of Walker's bullshit findings of fact (which was the majority of his opinion) and focus on the law. And since questions of law are usually reviewed de novo, they'll almost certainly start from the ground up and build an entirely new legal framework that will cover the numerous angles Walker missed and correct his glaring mistakes and omissions. If after that they come to the same conclusion as Walker, sure, he'll be affirmed. But that shouldn't be taken as a ringing endorsement for his reasoning.

Really, you should welcome the chance for an appellate judge and/or the SCOTUS to get a hold of this case and really get the t's crossed and the i's dotted. Again, I'm not sure why anyone would be satisfied placing one of their fundamental rights on top of the house of cards Walker has built instead of letting it get into the hands of more competent legal minds.

[Eulogy]

"hailed by legal scholars as a great opinion"

but hey you know more than them so i'll take your word for it. total house of cards.

[Eulogy]

wow, that was actually a pretty good one.

and corganist, i know the ruling isn't perfect or iron-clad or whatever. but dismissing it entirely seems out of line as well. i'm willing to concede it isn't perfect, but you have to concede that it's not a miserable failure too.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

"hailed by legal scholars as a great opinion"

but hey you know more than them so i'll take your word for it. total house of cards.

Whatever. If you think "Judge Walker thinks gay people should get married" is legal reasoning enough to rest the rights of gay people in CA on, more power to you. But it's funny how judicial decisions with flimsy reasoning never seem to settle the issue quite as well as ones based on solid legal thought (see: Roe v. Wade).

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Whatever. If you think "Judge Walker thinks gay people should get married" is legal reasoning enough to rest the rights of gay people in CA on, more power to you. But it's funny how judicial decisions with flimsy reasoning never seem to settle the issue quite as well as ones based on solid legal thought (see: Roe v. Wade).

when you are this overly simplistic and dismissive, it makes it so much harder to take anything you say seriously.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

wow, that was actually a pretty good one.

and corganist, i know the ruling isn't perfect or iron-clad or whatever. but dismissing it entirely seems out of line as well. i'm willing to concede it isn't perfect, but you have to concede that it's not a miserable failure too.

I just don't see it as anywhere near the home run people play it up as. It's more of a sacrifice bunt to move a runner into scoring position. Sure, the guy did a good job literally putting traditional marriage on trial and laying a factual groundwork that undermines most arguments anti-gay marriage advocates could make in support of it. And it's true that higher courts will have to be deferential to his findings of fact, but the fact that his legal arguments were so deficient keeps it from being something that should be hailed as something definitive in and of itself.

The most you can say he did is set up a higher court to bat cleanup and fill in the blanks on the actual Constitutional law part while using his factual findings to back up their reasoning. But if there's no appeal where that can be done, then basically all we're left with is a runner left on base, because Walker's reasoning isn't strong enough to stand on its own.

[Eulogy]

"all we're left with" is that people who happen to be attracted to members of the same sex can get married in the state of california.

this is a win-win situation (ignoring the potential for SCOTUS to fuck it up, but that's a different topic, i think). either the appellate court "bats clean-up" or there is no appeal and his ruling stands. maybe it won't satisfy legal circle jerks, but who cares?

[duovamp]

If Caine Walker were a judge, he too would be Judge Walker.

[redbull]

http://0.tqn.com/d/tvcomedies/1/0/D/...and_310_72.jpg

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

"all we're left with" is that people who happen to be attracted to members of the same sex can get married in the state of california.

this is a win-win situation (ignoring the potential for SCOTUS to fuck it up, but that's a different topic, i think). either the appellate court "bats clean-up" or there is no appeal and his ruling stands. maybe it won't satisfy legal circle jerks, but who cares?

I guess it only matters if you think the ends never justify the means. Sure, right now gay people can get married in California. But at the same time, millions of people just had their votes wiped out. If people get the sense that their vote was wiped out after a process of debate that builds a solid legal foundation that adequately explains exactly why their vote can't stand, they accept the ruling for what it is and move on. And the ruling is legitimized because it's never questioned anymore. But if people get the sense that their vote was tossed out arbitrarily because of weak reasoning and naked bias, then they get resentful. They'll keep pushing to overturn the decision any way they can until they fix it, and they'll never accept that the ruling is truly the word of law.

So no, it's not "win-win." A well reasoned decision that people will accept is a win. If Walker's edict serves as the last word on the issue, then it all but guarantees that gay marriage in CA will not be an issue that goes away soon.

[TuralyonW3]

Hopefully in about 10-15 years, Corganist's arguments will sound like the ones from the civil rights era reasoning if private businesses should be forced to allow blacks in.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I guess it only matters if you think the ends never justify the means. Sure, right now gay people can get married in California. But at the same time, millions of people just had their votes wiped out. If people get the sense that their vote was wiped out after a process of debate that builds a solid legal foundation that adequately explains exactly why their vote can't stand, they accept the ruling for what it is and move on. And the ruling is legitimized because it's never questioned anymore. But if people get the sense that their vote was tossed out arbitrarily because of weak reasoning and naked bias, then they get resentful. They'll keep pushing to overturn the decision any way they can until they fix it, and they'll never accept that the ruling is truly the word of law.

So no, it's not "win-win." A well reasoned decision that people will accept is a win. If Walker's edict serves as the last word on the issue, then it all but guarantees that gay marriage in CA will not be an issue that goes away soon.

At the same time, millions of people had their votes wiped out? Jesus christ. Their votes were wiped out because they had no standing to cast those votes in the first place. And all recent polling in California suggests that a majority is now in favor of allowing same-sex marriages. So yes, the issue will go away pretty goddamn soon.

Additionally, you're the only one accusing Walker's opinion of containing weak reasoning and naked bias.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

At the same time, millions of people had their votes wiped out? Jesus christ. Their votes were wiped out because they had no standing to cast those votes in the first place. And all recent polling in California suggests that a majority is now in favor of allowing same-sex marriages. So yes, the issue will go away pretty goddamn soon.

Additionally, you're the only one accusing Walker's opinion of containing weak reasoning and naked bias.

Why is it so hard to understand.

Just because a bunch of blacks and mormons rallied together against gay marriage doesn't make it right.

[Eulogy]

Apparently Latino Protestants are proving to be tough nuts to crack as well. 77% of Latino Catholics support gay marriage though. Go figure.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

At the same time, millions of people had their votes wiped out? Jesus christ. Their votes were wiped out because they had no standing to cast those votes in the first place.

How did they not? That makes absolutely zero sense. They didn't know they were voting for an unconstitutional law at the time. How could they?

The votes were legitimate, even if what they were voting for was later found unconstitutional, and thus the people are owed an adequate and reasonable explanation for why their will was overturned. It's not a matter of "the will of the people" trumping other people's rights. It's just a matter of the government (especially the judiciary) being accountable and not taking people's votes lightly. It should be a serious and carefully considered matter to overturn a popular initiative. An opinion that ignores direct caselaw and clearly misstates key facets of the law without explanation does not meet up to that standard.

And all recent polling in California suggests that a majority is now in favor of allowing same-sex marriages. So yes, the issue will go away pretty goddamn soon.

That's well and good. But that's still no reason to ignore or tolerate a badly reasoned judicial opinion. By your logic, Walker could have used any half-baked rationale he wanted to strike down Prop 8, as long as the state government didn't appeal and as long as public support for gay marriage eventually comes around enough that no one minds. That seems to be a pretty lackadaisical attitude to take towards the balance between respecting rights and laws.

Additionally, you're the only one accusing Walker's opinion of containing weak reasoning and naked bias.

I really doubt that's the case. But even if it was, how does that make any of my criticism of the opinion wrong? I think I've been pretty measured in my assessment of the flaws in the opinion and in pointing out where the judge completely dropped the ball. It's not like I've said the thing is destined to be overturned or that Walker wasn't thorough in his fact finding. He just was lazy and did just enough to get by on the legal reasoning part (which, again, is the most important part). Just because liberal reporters (but I repeat myself) and liberal law professors (ditto) like the result of the ruling doesn't mean that the opinion is some paragon of legal reasoning and a definitive statement on the constitutionality of gay marriage.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

Why is it so hard to understand.

Just because a bunch of blacks and mormons rallied together against gay marriage doesn't make it right.

You're right. It doesn't. But that doesn't mean you can get away with not telling them why they were wrong.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

How did they not?

Jesus. Go read the trial transcripts! That's what the entire thing was about!

[Eulogy]

liberal law professors don't just like the result. they like the opinion.

you can't dismiss them and then act as though i need to just take your word for it.