Prop 8: The Battle continues...

[Encryptshun]

No one has said that. I said being in a same sex relationship could reasonably be seen as sufficient attachment to the case to color his view of the proceedings. It may also be indicative of a hidden agenda with respect to the outcome of the case. Clear enough?

Going back to my previous (and ignored) question, by your logic, then should a woman recuse herself from all abortion cases? Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself if the case involves white-to-black racial discrimination?

If a judge has had his car stolen at some point in the past, should he recuse himself from presiding over a case involving automotive theft?

[AZhitman]

As liberal as R/T likes to *pretend* that he is, this is a clear case of the Lefty Thought Police gone wild.

Attempting to know the hearts of men, and then ascribing "expected behavior" to them based on what you've learned, without evidence to support it, is simply inappropriate.

Isaac drilled this one repeatedly, but I'll go one step further: The judge voicing an opinion beforehand does NOT matter.

[R/T Hemi]

No one has said that. I said being in a same sex relationship could reasonably be seen as sufficient attachment to the case to color his view of the proceedings. It may also be indicative of a hidden agenda with respect to the outcome of the case. Clear enough?

Going back to my previous (and ignored) question, by your logic, then should a woman recuse herself from all abortion cases? Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself if the case involves white-to-black racial discrimination?

If a judge has had his car stolen at some point in the past, should he recuse himself from presiding over a case involving automotive theft?

I didn't ignore your questions. I gave them all the attention they deserved. Your examples are misstatements of logic in which you ignore the part about a potential interest due to membership in a class that is directly affected by the outcome of the case. Neither of your examples address such a situation, consequently, they did not rate my attention. Perhaps a better word would be identify. As in a person who identifies with a particular class. Same result.

[R/T Hemi]

No one has said that. I said being in a same sex relationship could reasonably be seen as sufficient attachment to the case to color his view of the proceedings. It may also be indicative of a hidden agenda with respect to the outcome of the case. Clear enough?

Going back to my previous (and ignored) question, by your logic, then should a woman recuse herself from all abortion cases? Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself if the case involves white-to-black racial discrimination?

If a judge has had his car stolen at some point in the past, should he recuse himself from presiding over a case involving automotive theft?

I didn't ignore your questions. I gave them all the attention they deserved. Your examples are misstatements of logic in which you ignore the part about a potential interest due to membership in a class that is directly affected by the outcome of the case. Neither of your examples address such a situation, consequently, they did not rate my attention. Perhaps a better word would be identify. As in a person who identifies with a particular class. Same result.

[R/T Hemi]

@ the zonie hitman....
Liberal is hard for Publicans to understand. It comes with maturity and experience.

[R/T Hemi]

@ the zonie hitman....
Liberal is hard for Publicans to understand. It comes with maturity and experience.

When someone hides something.... I want to know why. Smells like an agenda maybe?

[AppleBonker]

What was he hiding?

[Encryptshun]

No one has said that. I said being in a same sex relationship could reasonably be seen as sufficient attachment to the case to color his view of the proceedings. It may also be indicative of a hidden agenda with respect to the outcome of the case. Clear enough?

[Going back to my previous (and ignored) question, by your logic, then should a woman recuse herself from all abortion cases? Should Clarence Thomas recuse himself if the case involves white-to-black racial discrimination?

If a judge has had his car stolen at some point in the past, should he recuse himself from presiding over a case involving automotive theft?

I didn't ignore your questions. I gave them all the attention they deserved. Your examples are misstatements of logic in which you ignore the part about a potential interest due to membership in a class that is directly affected by the outcome of the case. Neither of your examples address such a situation, consequently, they did not rate my attention. Perhaps a better word would be identify. As in a person who identifies with a particular class. Same result.

Hmm. Insults aside. Maybe what's baffling me is your definition of "potential interest".

Scenario 1: Gay judge presides over a case involving gay marriage. You say: should have recused himself.

Scenario 2: Black judge presides over a case involving white-on-black discrimination. You say: ignores the "personal interest" component of your argument.

In either case the ruling could directly affect the judge. If the gay judge rules in favor of Prop 8 he would be denying himself the opportunity to get married to his partner. If the black judge rules in favor of the defendant in the discrimination case then he or someone he loves might be discriminated against by that defendant down the line. In Scenario 2, a judge is not asked to recuse due to ethnicity. So tell me, how is it different?

[AZhitman]

@ the zonie hitman....
Liberal is hard for Publicans to understand. It comes with maturity and experience.

Perhaps it's a simple lack of logic... in which case, you're right, I'll never understand. What am I hiding?

If you can't respond to the position with logical discourse, just say so - I won't think any less of you. But random off-topic excursions into vague generalities, such as your posts above, serve only to distract your reader.

p.s. If you're still convinced I'm GOP material, you're even less perceptive than Howie.

[IBCoupe]

I think, Greg, your "going further" starts to head toward a line, but I think you're right in that it doesn't matter.

What's the question before the court? "Was Prop 8 constitutional?"

Does "I think gays should be allowed to marry" indicate a preexisting bias towards a determination of whether Prop 8 was constitutional? No. Greg's right. Even if he did come out and say, "Gays should be allowed to get married," it still wouldn't matter. If he had said, prior to the trial, "Prop 8 was unconstitutional," then he should recuse himself.

[R/T Hemi]

Hmm. Insults aside. Maybe what's baffling me is your definition of "potential interest".

Scenario 1: Gay judge presides over a case involving gay marriage. You say: should have recused himself.

Scenario 2: Black judge presides over a case involving white-on-black discrimination. You say: ignores the "personal interest" component of your argument.

In either case the ruling could directly affect the judge. If the gay judge rules in favor of Prop 8 he would be denying himself the opportunity to get married to his partner. If the black judge rules in favor of the defendant in the discrimination case then he or someone he loves might be discriminated against by that defendant down the line. In Scenario 2, a judge is not asked to recuse due to ethnicity. So tell me, how is it different?

One more time. THIS has nothing to do with his being gay. NOTHING. It has to do with the judge, being in a specific relationship which, as a class, are suing to overturn a law. He, as a member of that class ,is ruling on that particular issue. Can we leave gay out of the equation now?

The racial example is so far from the logic of the discussion that it's not worthy of mention. That's why I haven't.

[AZhitman]

Sure. Leave gay out of the equation. You're still wrong.

If it "has nothing to do with his being gay" (your words), yet he's "in a specific relationship, which, as a class..." (your words), there's a disconnect. How can he be a member of that "class' if he's not gay? So, it DOES have something to do with being gay. In fact, absent the gayness, you'd be fine with him presiding over the case. And if he weren't a member of the "class", then he wouldn't be gay. So either way, you've painted yourself into a ridiculously restrictive corner.

So, for you to ask, "can we leave gay out of the equation?", you must ignore it as well, as well as any perceived influence you think that might have over his handling of a determination.

What Your Denseness fails to comprehend is that ALL people (including judges) are "members of a class", and sometimes, that "class" and a pending case INTERSECT.

See, in my business, we call it professionalism - the ability to set one's opinions, biases, motivations and personal feelings aside, and treat a case fairly and on its merits.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you can't fathom that happening. Everyone's gotta have an agenda, right?

By your miserably flawed logic, a judge who was taken to the cleaners by his ex-wife shouldn't rule on divorce cases. A judge who's been impacted by violent crime shouldn't preside in an armed robbery case. A judge who was molested as a child should recuse himself from a sexual assault case. A judge who's been fired should never hold sway over an employment law dispute.

You're absurd. Which actually surprises me, because usually you make *some* sense (even when we disagree).