Ware upholds Walker!

[Stella_Omega]

Judge Ware denied the defendant-intervenors’ motion to vacate Judge Walker’s ruling that struck down Prop 8.

Key and notable paragraphs from Judge Ware’s ruling:

In fact, the Court observes that Judge Walker, like all judges, had a duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Among other things, this means that if, in an overabundance of caution, he were to have disclosed intimate, but irrelevant, details about his personal life that were not reasonably related to the question of disqualification, he could have set a pernicious precedent. Such a precedent would be detrimental to the integrity of the judiciary, because it would promote, incorrectly, disclosure by judges of highly personal information (e.g., information about a judge’s history of being sexually abused as a child), however irrelevant or time-consuming. Contrary to the intent of Section 455, which was designed to preserve judicial integrity through practices of transparency, it is clear that fostering the practice of commencing a judicial proceeding with an extensive exploration into the history and psyche of the presiding judge would produce the spurious appearance that irrelevant personal information could impact the judge’s decision-making, which would be harmful to the integrity of the courts. In fact, courts that have considered the question have taken the opposite view. See, e.g., In re McCarthey, 368 F.3d 1266, 1269 (10th Cir. 2004) (declining to “craft a procedure that essentially will require district judges to submit to discovery . . . when a party lacks an adequate factual basis for disqualification on non-financial matters”).

Finally, the presumption that “all people in same-sex relationships think alike” is an unreasonable presumption, and one which has no place in legal reasoning. The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits. The Motion fails to cite any evidence that Judge Walker would be incapable of being impartial, but to presume that Judge Walker was incapable of being impartial, without concrete evidence to support that presumption, is inconsistent with what is required under a reasonableness standard.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion to Vacate Judgment on the ground that the presiding judge failed to recuse himself under Section 455(a).

In response, Courage Campaign wrote to our members, hundreds of whom chipped in to help fund billboard advertising outside the courthouse on this issue. The e-mail and photo of the advertising can be found below. We’re going to now work on getting those tapes released! If you’d like to chip in to support that effort, you can do so here.

*pours a glass of the good stuff*

The transcripts i read yesterday made this outcome pretty clear.

 

[Etoile]

This immediately shot all over my various social networks, WOO HOO!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Champagne all around!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Bump because good news should be at the top once in a while