Sponsored message
Logged in as
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.

News

Attorneys Face Off Over Impartiality of Judge Who Ruled Against Prop 8

Rainbow Flag in Downtown Los Angeles Prop 8 Protest

One year ago, Congress defunded public media. Now that we're 100% community funded, please become a sustaining member or increase your existing membership today.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments yesterday about whether last year's decision that Proposition 8 violates the rights of gays and lesbians should be thrown out because the judge who authored the ruling is gay.

Former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who's now retired, revealed after deciding the case that he's been in a same-sex relationship for ten years. Walker never said he wanted to marry his partner, and didn't get married during the brief window of time that it was legal in California (following his own ruling).

Still, lawyers defending Prop 8 told the panel that Walker should have told the court about his intentions with his partner as if he were a young Southern gentleman seeking the approval of his lady's parents, because there might have been reason to question his impartiality.

“One of the facts Judge Walker was obligated to disclose is whether or not he had an interest in marrying his partner,” [attorney Charles] Cooper said, according to the New York Times. “He didn’t.”

That's despite the fact that Walker's successor, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware, upheld Walker's decision and also said that Walker indeed did not have to reveal his sexuality, or whether he wanted to marry his partner.

"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," Ware ruled, according to CNN.

The three-person panel seemed to agree with Ware yesterday, reports the LA Times, and delivered some clever smackdowns accordingly:

Sponsored message

"So a married judge could never hear a divorce?" asked Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.

"What about an unmarried heterosexual judge who wants to maintain the definition of marriage?" asked Judge N. Randy Smith. "Does he have to disclose that?"

The panel is expected to make its decision by next year, although representatives for both sides seem fairly certain that the case will be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

One year ago, Congress voted to defund public media, eliminating a critical $1.7 million from our budget every year going forward. But they couldn’t silence us, and we’re not going anywhere. LAist is now 100% community funded and that means we’re taking our future into our own hands and turning to you to keep local reporting strong.

You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our nonprofit newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our communities. We are free to follow facts wherever they lead and to hold power to account without fear or favor. Our only loyalty is to our readers and listeners and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen Southern California’s communities.

If this story helped you, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief

Make your tax-deductible donation today