******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Going After Judge James Ware

A motion has been filed in California federal District Court seeking to vacate former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling holding that Prop. 8 violated the United States Constitution.  A copy of the motion is here.  As a matter of routine, the movants selected a hearing date for the motion in July before Chief Judge James Ware, who replaced Judge Walker on the case.

The motion argues that Judge Walker's recent announcement that he has been in a committed homosexual relationship for the past 8 years gave Judge Walker an interest in the outcome of the Prop. 8 ruling.  The movants argue that such interest combined with evidence of actual bias, including Judge Walker's highly unusual procedural rulings in the trial whcih led among other things to a rare rebuke by the U.S. Supreme Court, demonstrated a conflict of interest which should have led Judge Walker to recuse himself from the case.

The motion is low percentage, in my estimation.  Nonetheless, the motion presents important issues which need to be addressed promptly because the outcome of the motion could affect pending appellate proceedings in the California Supreme Court and 9th Circuit, so Judge Ware moved the hearing up from July to mid-June.

That has led to accusations by a completely misinformed Teddy Partridge at Firedoglake that Judge Ware is homophobic and should be taken off the case, Federal Judge Invites Rank Bigotry Into 9th Circuit [sic] Courtroom:
This is rank bigotry on the part of Judge Ware, and can only be justified by the federal court system’s consideration of gay people as second-class citizens. It is shameless prejudice. No heterosexual judge would be held to any similar standard regarding her own long-term, committed relationship. No plaintiff would dare question the bona fides of a straight judge.

Gays are second-class in federal court and in America; Judge James Ware just proved the entire point of Perry.

And no chief judge would consider such a motion about a heterosexual judge, nor would he grant a hearing and request briefs on the topic. It is absurd on its face and should be rejected by the federal court system. Judge Ware should be sanctioned for allowing such rank bigotry a place in his courtroom.

He should certainly remove himself from any further deliberations regarding the Perry case, as he’s shown himself to hold bigotry in high enough esteem to hear its arguments about a colleague.

It’s shameful and it shouldn’t be tolerated.
The comments to Partridge's post are even more hyperventilated.

Word to Teddy.  Deciding motions is what Judges do.  The fact that a Judge allows a hearing on a motion, and expedites consideration, does not reflect agreement with the motion.

If you really want Judge Ware off the case, gets lawyers to make the argument for you.  I think I know a law firm which will do it for free, because things have been slow lately in its Gitmo detainee practice group.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share


  1. "If you really want Judge Ware off the case, gets lawyers to make the argument for you. I think I know a law firm which will do it for free, because things have been slow lately in its Gitmo detainee practice group."

    Love it!! Burn.

  2. A heterosexual judge would have not had any way to benefit personally from overturning Prop 8 and allowing for same sex marriage. A gay judge, involved in a long term relationship, does.

    But that won't stop the gay lobby from bashing any heterosexual judge.

  3. I am gradually becoming weary of the tactics of the radical gay leftists, and I find myself wondering if and how their relentless, unceasing, and unquenchable campaign will end. I am beginning to look back fondly on the days when most of them stayed in the closet. Will they push too far and end up losing much of what they have gained?

  4. "Gays are second-class in federal court and in America ..."
    Probably not, but many in their supporter group display 3rd-class intellects.


  5. A heterosexual judge would have not had any way to benefit personally from overturning Prop 8 and allowing for same sex marriage. A gay judge, involved in a long term relationship, does.

    It was my understanding that proponents of Prop 8 argued that homosexual marriage harms heterosexual marriage. I mean, that was the whole point of outlawing SSM in the first place, wasn't it?

    If you believe that SSM is bad for regular marriage then you have to say a straight judge, who is married to a member of the opposite sex or would like to be, must recuse himself. Unless there are some asexual judges out there I don't know about, we're kinda out of judges.

    If, on the other hand, you don't believe that SSM is bad for straight people, what the hell do you have against it?

  6. I too am tired of the left not at least arguing in context. A recent decision: Thompson v. Connick that was reversed by SCOTUS prompted an equally punk reply at Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2290036/
    When reviewing the commenters, it appears that none of them read the opinion either.

  7. Teddy's assertions seem long on emotion and short on legal justification. Color me unconvinced. Besides, it is the 9th Circuit. They are bound to get it wrong. They have a tradition to uphold.

  8. Well, actually, random string of characters, right now the gay judge and straight judge have the same rights I do. Giving gay judge new rights is a benefit that he can profit from.

  9. i think what he is saying is that the simple fact that he is even considering it is the bigotry. which is still stupid.

  10. LC2etc, please, inform all us dumb people. Name the states that prevent a gay man from getting a marriage license under the same rules and guidelines as a straight man. Name the state where the question "Are you gay?" appears on any marriage license.

  11. Who gave the court the power to redefine the English language?

    I'm very pessimistic about this. I can't remember the last court 'win' for conservatives, not-withstanding the two obamacare cases. It seems even if we achieve the desired verdict, there will *always* be some weasel tactic for evading the consequences of decisions (i.e. ignoring the rulings on firearms in Chicago or EPA regulations).

  12. Personally I support gay marriage, so long as no religious groups are forced into providing the service if they disagree with it. In my opinion gay marriage would be a legal institution and not a biblical institution. People get hung up on biblical marriage being about a man and a woman, but they conveniently forget that it is about being bound together by God. So how is the marriage between two atheists any more biblical than the marriage between two homosexuals?
    However, I also agree with Judge Ware, that Judge Walker should have recused himself because of his personal interests in the case. Teddy’s comments are completely out of line, and utterly inexplicable.
    As to LC2f4osPo_IvX77QSFcrIdwA3AI-'s comment. I think its preposterous to say that the Judge is biased based on the argument that the defense is making. Just because the defense is arguing that gay marriage does damage to the institution of heterosexual marriage, doesn't mean that the Judge prescribes to that believe or that the argument is even valid.

  13. Vet, that actually occurred to me to. You can't really claim that a gay judge would have a stake in the outcome of this case without also acknowledging that a straight judge would have the same interest.

    However, for your argument that gays should be entitled to some "marriage[sic]" fails when you examine the purpose of marriage. It's for the children. Men much wiser than us have deemed that the most desirable way to raise a child is with a mother and a father present. If you don't believe that this is the case, would you be able to deny a child (in the case of adoption) a father? A mother?

    Regardless, if you view a marriage as simply a legal arrangement, some way to divvy up state or company benefits, then the argument becomes much weaker (but more interesting IMO). In a purely financial arrangement, I could "marry" any random Joe I found for the sake of an abstract financial reason. At this point, your definition of "marriage" becomes nebulous and actually kinda freaky.

    I've pretty much given up on this fight. The whole idea of "marriage" has been weakened until now the whole concept is in the realm of accountants and politicians as a financial and legal abstraction. Society 0 - Statism 1

  14. "Gradually becoming weary of the tactics" of the radical gay left? These noisy whiny little stalinists have been wearying from the start. Their attack-dog brain-dead tactics are THE reason why many in the rest of society do not believe in this issue.
    Judge Ware is a "B" judge, good but not great, but he does have a history of fabrication. I think he got caught up in a story, starring himself, and then, having spoken of it publicly, couldn't back out.