 |
| Charles Cooper, lead counsel for "Protect Marriage" (sic) in the Propositiopn 8 federal lawsuit |
Of course, this is a ridiculously bigoted motion. The implication is that an open;y gay judge can not fairly judge a case involving gay rights, a Black or Latino jurist could not judge a civil rights case fairly and female judges could not make decisions about abortion rights!
Lambda Legal released a press release in response:
"Proponents of Proposition 8 certainly are getting desperate."American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization promoting the lawsuit, also has a response to Cooper's ridiculous motion:
(San Francisco, April 25, 2011) — In reaction to today's filing of a motion
to vacate last year's historic decision by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn
Walker declaring California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Jon Davidson,
Legal Director for Lambda Legal, issued the following statement.
"Proponents of Proposition 8 certainly are getting desperate. This reeks
of a hail-Mary attempt to assail Judge Walker's character because they are
unable to rebut the extremely well-reasoned ruling he issued last year.
It's becoming a sadly typical move of the right: don't like the ruling;
attack the referee."
To say that Judge Walker's should have disclosed his ten-year relationship
with another man or that it made him unfit to rule on Proposition 8 is like
saying that a married heterosexual judge deciding an issue in a divorce
proceeding has to disclose if he or she is having marital problems and
might someday be affected by legal rulings in the case. Or that any judge
who professes any religious faith is unable to rule on any question of
religious liberty or, at a minimum, must disclose what his faith teaches.
Much like a suggestion that a female judge could not preside over a case
involving sexual harassment or an African American judge could not preside
over a case involving race discrimination, Proposition 8's supporters
improperly are suggesting that a judge will rule in favor of any litigant
with whom he shares a personal characteristic.
Judges hold a special and respected place in our society. Every day, they
are called upon to administer justice – in routine contract or traffic
court disputes, gut-wrenching child custody decisions, complex criminal
proceedings, and, as in this case, disputes about the basic human rights
that our Constitution is designed to protect. There may be judges who
betray their responsibilities and act with bias, but such a grave
accusation must be supported by evidence. Simply disagreeing with a
decision is not evidence that it was the result of bias. And assuming that
being in a same-sex relationship renders some judges unable to interpret
the law and do the job they have sworn to do insults both judges and
America's system of justice."
“This motion is yet another in a string of desperate and absurd motions by Prop 8 Proponents who refuse to accept the fact that the freedom to marry is a constitutional right. They’re attempting to keep secret the video of the public trial and they’re attacking the judge because they disagree with his decision. Clearly, the Proponents are grasping at straws because they have no legal case.”National Center for Lesbian Rights attorney Shannon Minter also responded:
"This is a desperate and ill-advised move that underscores their inability to defend Prop 8 on the merits. This is not likely to win them any points with the courts, who understandably do not appreciate having the integrity of judges called into question based on such outrageous grounds. This is part and parcel of the underhanded way the Prop 8 campaign itself was run-based on lies, insinuations, and unsupported innuendo."
The 9th Circuit announced there will be hearing in San Francisco on July 11 in San Francisco before District Court judge James Ware.
UPDATE 04/27/2011: The hearing on Cooper's motion has been expedited to June 13.
Hat./tip to LGBTPOV
