Quote:
Originally Posted by cambaby
There is a magnitude of ruling we are talking about here, dont act coy and act like this isnt the single most important law that homosexuals have ever felt needed to pass. Also your argument about who labeled him what is irrelevant. The guy IS sympathetic to homosexuals, he wouldnt be one if he wasnt.
Also lets not forget THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA BANNED SAME SEX MARRIAGE, he is in the minority opinion and has no right to be judging this case.
|
The judges' sexual orientation is irrelevant
as a matter of law, unless there is
clear bias at hand in the text and logic of his ruling.
Your assertion of bias here is founded on a standard that NO appeals court is going to accept. Simply asserting judicial bias as a matter of identity politics is an argument that will fail in court, every time -- as it should, because there would be no end to the number of judicial recusals that we could demand based on such flimsy evidence of bias.
Have you read the opinion? If so, what is it that you find so biased about it?
Forget about who/what the judge IS for a moment, and focus on what he
wrote. That is what the appeals court is going to do, and that is what the Supreme Court is going to do with both the district court's ruling and that of the appeals court, once the case reaches them (assuming they grant cert on it, which I think is a pretty safe assumption).