Support for LAist comes from
We Explain L.A.
Stay Connected

Share This

News

Gay Marriage Foes Want to Impeach Judge Who Overturned Prop 8

Stories like these are only possible with your help!
You have the power to keep local news strong for the coming months. Your financial support today keeps our reporters ready to meet the needs of our city. Thank you for investing in your community.


U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (AP Photo/San Francisco Daily Journal, S.Todd Rogers)
Just like Lawyer David Boies warned, Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling to overturn Prop 8 would have critics attacking everything but what's in his 138-page decision. Today the American Family Association called for its members to work towards impeaching Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker."Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place," Tim Wildmon, President of the AFA, wrote in an e-mail to members today. "In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest."

But Walker's sexual orientation was never a big issue when he was randomly selected to preside over the case. "It doesn't seem to be an issue for anybody, including the supporters of Proposition 8, because when it was announced that Judge Walker was the judge who'd been assigned this case, they did not ask that he be recused from it," said NPR's Karen Grigsby Bates."They didn't think that he'd have a conflict in overseeing it. And that's pretty interesting."

Walker was appointed to the court by George H. W. Bush.

Support for LAist comes from

Wildmon, like other conservatives, also uses the 10th Amendment -- “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" -- as a reason for Walker's ousting.

While that may not be enough of a reason to oust him, "many legal observers are saying that the Supreme Court will in all likelihood decline to hear it and bounce it back to the states because they think the states ought to work it out," added Grigsby Bates. "And also because, frankly, it's a pretty sticky issue."

Others are not so sure. The high court has taken on numerous other marriage cases in the past.