The following comes from a Dec. 30 posting on the politics blog of SFGate.com.
Legal reporters with time on their hands sometimes leaf through U.S. Supreme Court rulings and see things they’ve never noticed before. Like Justice Samuel Alito’s putdown of San Francisco’s former chief federal judge, Vaughn Walker, for his ruling on same-sex marriage.
In 2010, Walker presided over the nation’s first trial on a state’s prohibition of gay and lesbian nuptials. He invited testimony from scholars on both sides of the debate over Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that voters had approved two years earlier.
Supporters of Prop. 8 withdrew most of their witnesses — claiming they’d been intimidated by Walker’s short-lived plan to post videos of the trial on YouTube — but the measure’s opponents presented a parade of researchers on the history and purposes of marriage, the laws that have governed it and its development over the centuries.
Walker cited their studies in a detailed set of post-trial findings of fact in August 2010, when he ruled that Prop. 8 was an unconstitutional act of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender. He found, for example, that marriage had historically been based on assumptions about men’s and women’s roles and males’ inherent authority, that it had evolved into a state-recognized social and economic partnership based on a couple’s mutual commitment, and that there was no evidence that opposite-sex marriages would suffer if same-sex couples were allowed to wed.
When the Prop. 8 case reached the Supreme Court, the justices sidestepped the constitutional issues. Instead, they found in June that the measure’s sponsors, as private citizens with no personal stake in the marriage dispute, lacked legal standing to defend their initiative in federal court after state officials bowed out. That reinstated Walker’s ruling and legalized same-sex marriage in the state.
None of the justices’ opinions mentioned Walker’s factual findings or anything else in his decision. But Alito brought it up in his dissenting opinion from another ruling the same day, a 5-4 decision striking down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples.
In arguing that the law was constitutional, Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court was stepping outside the judicial sphere to resolve a debate between “two competing views of marriage.” Citing conservative scholars quoted in House Republicans’ briefs, Alito said the “traditional” view was that marriage was an inherently opposite-sex institution, crafted to produce and support each new generation, while the newer “consent-based” view was based on a couple’s mutual commitment.
Judges should stay out of that debate, Alito said, and leave it to lawmakers and the people. As an example of how the judicial process can go wrong, he cited the Prop. 8 trial.
“The trial judge, after receiving testimony from some expert witnesses, purported to make ‘findings of fact’ on such questions as why marriage came to be … what marriage is … and the effect legalizing same-sex marriage would have on opposite-sex couples,” Alito wrote, referring dismissively to Walker’s summaries of the evidence.
“At times, the trial reached the heights of parody,” the justice declared, when Walker “questioned his ability to take into account the views of great thinkers of the past because they were unavailable to testify.”
He was referring to the closing argument of Prop. 8 lawyer Charles Cooper, who cited the views of the late sociologist Kingsley Davis and William Blackstone, the 18th-century British jurist and legal writer, that the essence of marriage was the male-female relationship in conceiving and raising children.
“I don’t mean to be flip,” Walker responded, according to a transcript, “but Blackstone didn’t testify. Kingsley Davis didn’t testify. What testimony in this case supports the proposition?”
Alito went on to condemn a court filing by 11 constitutional law professors who urged the court in the Prop. 8 case to give the same deference to Walker’s findings on marriage that appellate courts normally grant to trial judges who have heard the evidence firsthand.
“Only an arrogant legal culture that has lost all appreciation of its own limitations could take such a suggestion seriously,” Alito said.
His comments haven’t gotten much public attention in six months, but they didn’t go unnoticed by the interested parties.
“It is just insulting to the District Court judge and to the trial,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at UC Irvine and one of the 11 law professors who signed the court filing supporting Walker’s findings.
It was also reminiscent of the Prop. 8 supporters’ denunciations of Walker for even holding a trial, said Therese Stewart, San Francisco’s chief deputy city attorney, who represented the city in its suit challenging Prop. 8. In legal motions and public statements, the sponsors of the 2008 ballot measure argued there was no need to gather evidence or hear from witnesses on the constitutionality of limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, calling it a tradition that has been followed for centuries and repeatedly upheld by the courts.
“I would rather that a judge hear evidence than pull it out of the Internet,” Stewart said, referring to Alito’s reliance on the conservative scholars quoted by House Republicans.
Alito has his defenders. Rory Little, a UC Hastings law professor, said he doesn’t share the justice’s conservative views but praised him for thinking “outside the box” and for pointing out that trial judges sometimes frame their subjective opinions as “findings of fact.”
But Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for two couples who challenged Prop. 8, said the history of marriage was central to the question of whether denying gays and lesbians the ability to wed violated their constitutional right to equality under the law.
All that Alito did was “summarize the position of Prop. 8′s proponents,” Boutrous said. “He turned the judicial function on its head.”
Alito’s opinion, including footnote 7 that criticizes Walker, can be found at the end of the Supreme Court ruling, linked here.
To read original SFGate posting, click here.
Judge Walker should have recused himself. A homosexual, he was completely incompetent to view any evidence (even the nutty kind “offered” at his tribunal”). The matter was pre-determined by Walker, who — not surprisingly — stepped down not long after appeals on this matter. Yes, yes, it is true that homosexual judges may be brilliant lawyers, but entirely unable to see beyond their own sexuality. Given the fruitcake quality of this proceedings, the proponents of State law, one that was voted on by a majority of Californians, was ignored. Why? Because he acted as the champion of homosexual sexual practitioners in the State — he could kill what he saw as society’s “discrimination” against homosexual sex. Justice Aliot’s criticism was pretty mild given the complete lawlessness of Judge Walker’s court and decision. But then, the Rule of Law is essentially a dead concept now; everything comes down to marketing, and media savvy. Just think back to the carefully orchestrated cries of “Santo subito” at the Vatican during the funeral of Bl. JPII (and then the rush to get his “sainthood” in order). Nope — Judge Walker is a fraud, and the American legal system is largely corrupt. Not much hope left; perhaps Castro Street habitues were signing the same phrase for good ol’ Judge Walker: “Santo subito” for his honor!!
Who cares, it’s over and the gays won, TIME TO MOVE ON!!!
I followed that trial. It was the worst mockery of justice I have seen in my life. Since when does a Federal judge take testimony on what the fundamental nature of marriage is? Since when does he issue an opinion saying that he has solved the question of what marriage is, as if he were some sort of philosopher king? The testimony was laughable and entirely one sided. The judge quickly retired after that case, because he knew that if he had stuck around, he would have been subject to sanctions.
St. Christopher, your position would make more sense if you also believed that a Catholic justice should also have recused themselves from a Prop 8 case, because their religious beliefs would make them incapable of deciding the issue on the law.
However, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t see it that way. In fact, my guess is you’d consider a Catholic justice who would never consider gay marriage legal under any circumstances as the perfect justice to hear such a case. Walker does seem biased, given his behavior during the trial. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled against the prop 8 case, and how many of them are gay?
The fact is St. Christopher, you wouldn’t give a hoot about the integrity of the process as long as gay marriage ended up getting banned by law.
Btw, I don’t think the Supreme Court’s standing decision precludes further challenges. My guess is that a plaintiff who is an employer who now has to provide benefits for gay employees could claim to be harmed. If such a company could show their employee costs rising significantly, the court might well find they something at stake. I can’t imagine it would be impossible to find such a plaintiff in SF.
NO, it is not the same as Catholic justices on the court hearing matters having to do with prop 8. Judge Walker had a PERSONAL INTEREST in the case – if gay marriage survived, he and his partner could then be married. There is no such personal interest on the part of the Catholic justices.
So women judges should recuse themselves when the issue of women’s rights come before the court? Or a black justice when racial justice issues come to the court? Should Sandra Day O’Connor recused herself when abortion came to the court in the famous Planned Parenthood v Casey case, because she might want to have an abortion? Or perhaps a judge who owns a cell phone shouldn’t hear a case about NSA privacy issues? Or a judge who might someday want to publish a book maybe should step aside from hearing a copyright case? Should a judge with kids not hear a home-schooling case, because she has a son and, according to you, “might be thinking about” home schooling her son?
The “homosexual marriage” issue(s) that are coming to the Supreme Court remain vital and undecided. Judge Walker is a corrupt jurist, who only wanted to help his fellow homosexual sexualists before he stepped down. Who knows what the Roberts Court will rule, given its craven character, as seen most evidently in the ObamaCare case. (?Really, a taxing power that was directly refuted by the Government’s own counsel.) But, that does not resolve the issue — a society is not required to commit suicide, and formally recognizing homosexual sex leads to such a result. Please read the dissent of Justice Scalia in Lawrence v. Texas, by divorcing morality from a state’s ability to make laws, there are no limits that can be justified on human behavior, no matter how vile. Child pornography, multiple-partner marriages, sex with animals, pretty much anything that is consensual goes. This is not hard to see, so the fact that we now have the monstrosity of homosexual “freedoms” it is pretty clear that most people no longer much care what goes on (as long as they can have easy access to various media, to weed, and easy sex, that is about all that is sought today (oh yes, and paid-for birth control and abortion access). Nope, America the beautiful is becoming America the vile, the putrescent, the evil. And, just so people of the same sex can commit unnatural acts on each other. Read Isiah 5:18-30, expecially the familiar verse 20, “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil[,]” and verse 24, ” . . , for they have cast away the law of the lord of hosts, and have blasphemed the word of the Holy One of Israel.”
It all starts with us.
When we elect immoral politicians, they appoint people of like mind to positions of power.
(Some judges are elected.)
We need to take back this Country through the voting booths.
In addition we must stop supporting unions that use union dues to support pro-murder/abortion, and pro-sodomy marriage candidates and parties.
We must return to the Bible and teach RESPONSIBILITY for ones own actions, and the principle of SUBSIDIARITY in the Catechism.
There should be no FREE handouts. With the exception of those who are mentally or physically unable – all who get food stamps and other government handouts/freebees must work for them – if really needed. Let them pick up trash near the highway, work in soup kitchens, or whatever is needed by society.
(Although looking for work is a requirement for welfare payments, Obama through one of his infamous Executive Orders said people no longer have to look for work, so his unemployment numbers will look better, and he is personally creating a sub-society with sloth as it’s mantra.)
See BIBLE: St Paul to the Thessalonians – 2 Thess 3:6; 2 Thess 3:10-12.
Why is this not preached at work.
When was the last time you heard a homily on laziness – which can be a Mortal Sin ?
CCC: ” 1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great.
They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices.
They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.”
The article fails to mention that ‘Judge Von-Wanker’ Chose the parties allowed (And Not Allowed) to actually litigate – and thus Shut Out Many Valid Witnesses and Arguments that had direct impact on the case.
I myself wrote the Court in Frisco After attending the Farce of a Trial:
The Honorable Judge James Ware
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Re: Letter to the Court on Motion to Vacate Ruling by Judge Walker –
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 3:09-cv-02292-JW 5/27/11
Dear Judge Ware:
As a Pro-Se Amicus to the both the State and Federal Proposition 8 cases, I write this brief letter to the Court to provide only that additional information I have that is related to the Motion to Vacate. I was physically present in Judge Walker’s Courtroom on the day that Mr. Blankenhorn was cross examined, and witnessed first hand a spectacle of witness harassment and intimidation that could only be called “Circus Like” – if one wanted to insult the professionalism of circus workers.
Sitting in the front row of the spectator seats I observed such a constant background pattern of jeering, laughing, booing, cheering and other forms of witness intimidation from the crowd (who were overwhelmingly opposed to Proposition 8 and derisive of the witness and proponents) that I believe it impacted the proceedings and interfered with the witness ability to testify.