Surprise Surprise- Radical Judge At Work

[Jim DeVito]

I knew it, bert and ernie!!

I'm glad that sign said it for me... I always thought a gay bridal registry would blow the lid off this economy, but I would not want to stereotype and such.

[sharon kinsella]

Would someone please remove Salo's batteries.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Would someone please remove Salo's batteries.

I wondered where you were.

[sharon kinsella]

Knee surgery 8/13!

[Phil Florian]

It doesn't matter who appointed him. Conservatives have nominated some of the most liberal judges. The judge himself is gay, can you say conflict of interest?

Why let facts get in the way.

The majority will never agree on this and it will always be looked as abnormal by the masses. Sorry folks, this lifestyle will never be accepted by the majority no matter how hard you push, even to teach it to 1st graders.

Really, being gay is a "conflict of interest?" So only gay judges should preside in any cases involving straight marriage issues? Single Judges? Can only white judges deal with cases involving non-white plaintiffs/criminals? Will the prosecutor demand a white lawyer for their client because a black one would be a conflict of interest?

Just curious, your honor.

[Phil Florian]

Oh, and Will, pedophilia is pedophilia. Most pedophiles are straight. You can actually inform yourself about it.

Yup, this is absoutely true. Thanks for posting this. Will, did you read and understand this? I am not trying to be facetious, either. I ask because this is often the Conservative rallying cry to falsely connect pedophilia and homosexuality. Are they doing it accidentally and out of ignorance or on purpose and out of spite? I am curious what your thoughts are on that and why you say it; spite or ignorance? Seriously...ask any criminal psychologist who specializes in sex offending behavior and the data is really conclusive that pedophilia is mostly a straight and male phenomenon. I mean, it isn't even argued in scientific circles. Only Conservative media repeats the fallacy at worst or doesn't fact check it and challenge it when it is uttered by someone from a Conservative point of view.

[Ryan Salo]

Phil,

Good question. I am glad you are adding to this conversation.

In my opinion recusal is required simply to preserve the appearance of impartiality. The fact that this judge is gay hurts his decision. If a black judge is involved in some judgment rewarding all blacks to some benefit he/she should recuse himself/herself.

BTW - It is OK to just ask questions, you don't need to lower yourself to others on the decks by taking jabs. We can try to treat each other with respect, no matter how much we disagree.

[Phil Florian]

Phil,

Good question. I am glad you are adding to this conversation.

In my opinion recusal is required simply to preserve the appearance of impartiality. The fact that this judge is gay hurts his decision. If a black judge is involved in some judgment rewarding all blacks to some benefit he/she should recuse himself/herself.

BTW - It is OK to just ask questions, you don't need to lower yourself to others on the decks by taking jabs. We can try to treat each other with respect, no matter how much we disagree.

Good point on the latter...I withdraw that statement and apologize. That said, judicial recusal is often reserved for cases where the judge may financial benefit (shareholder in a company on trial, as example) or is personally involved with plaintiff or defedant in case. Also when they make airhead mistakes as two judges did in the local Sowell case by prejudicing the case by opening up to the media about it. Sheesh. But that is another discussion...

That said, every single decision a judge makes about the law provides possible precedence for a future case. Unless it has immediate personal gain there really is no conflict of interest. Are you saying no female judges should be allowed to, say, make rulings on abortion law because it could impact an entire gender's right to choose? That only men should decide this? Or a case that grants wider responsibility to a father in child custody cases should only be considered by women because of the possible impact on all fathers (or potential fathers?). Do you see where I am going with this?

[Ryan Salo]

Phil,

I do see where you are going with it and it is a tight line to try to walk. This has not happened before and the potential benefits for a small group of people is huge. I think that for the good of the "cause" he should have recused himself to benefit the whole. To me the difference is a potential one time event verses a lifestyle change.

I think a lot of people that disagree with the "cause" would have at least had a lot more respect for him. I can't know for sure whether the lifestyle he chooses to live affected his decision, it doesn't on the surface appear to have, but it would have been a lot stronger decision coming from someone not directly involved.

Thanks for the real conversation, it is refreshing on this site.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Ryan,
So let's keep this civil, which includes you not making completely unfounded hateful remarks on an entire class of citizens.

Now with that out of the way...

While I'll concede on the point that you can find homosexuality morally objectionable (it's your right to do so just as I find most conservative Christians and Sarah Palin morally objectionable), let's discuss the facts in this case...specifically the judge's finding of fact.

Assuming you've actually read the verdict, the judge lays out a clear legal framework based on the law. Which legal arguments do you specifically disagree with in his ruling? Now remember, you have to have a legal reason for disagreement, not just a moral one, that's how this country works. So I'm curious where you think he legally got it wrong?

And let's assume for a moment that the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court uphold the judge's legal findings (which most legal experts view as the expected outcome given the strength of the legal finding), what are you predicting to happen? How will you personally be harmed?

Also if the "straight" 9th Circuit or "straight and conservative" Supreme Court uphold his ruling, are you more likely to see its validity rather than trying to paint it as biased?

[Ryan Salo]

Now remember, you have to have a legal reason for disagreement, not just a moral one, that's how this country works

All laws are based on morality to one degree or another. So a moral reason can create a legal one.

Definition of moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles.

As a society our morals say that dogs are of value so we don't slaughter them as food, but cherish and protect them. We eat pigs here, which are cherished elsewhere.

Society can have changing views of morality.

What do you base your "rights" on?

[Ryan Salo]

So let's keep this civil, which includes you not making completely unfounded hateful remarks on an entire class of citizens.

Can you please tell me where/when I made completely unfounded hateful remarks?

Thanks.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Now remember, you have to have a legal reason for disagreement, not just a moral one, that's how this country works

All laws are based on morality to one degree or another. So a moral reason can create a legal one.

Definition of moral - concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles.

As a society our morals say that dogs are of value so we don't slaughter them as food, but cherish and protect them. We eat pigs here, which are cherished elsewhere.

Society can have changing views of morality.

What do you base your "rights" on?

So you're just going to ignore the actually difficult question. I'm still waiting for you to show me where the judge was wrong in his legal reasoning?

It's the judges reasoning that will decide the ultimate outcome of all the appeals, but you haven't yet once made a clear observation on where specifically the judge erred in his ruling and how you would legally support a different opinion. Instead you bring into question the judges integrity in his ability to rule.

So let's try this again...where specifically did the judge err in his ruling and how you would legally support a different opinion?

I'm guessing the reason you continue to avoid actually going down this path is that you can't legally support a different outcome?

[Bryan Schwegler]

So let's keep this civil, which includes you not making completely unfounded hateful remarks on an entire class of citizens.

Can you please tell me where/when I made completely unfounded hateful remarks?

Thanks.

About 60% of your posts in this thread contain examples of it. Read them again.

[Stephen Eisel]

About 60% of your posts in this thread contain examples of it. Read them again.

I went back and re-read Ryan's post... Maybe I missed the hate or maybe you are jumping to conclusions based upon Ryan's political party affiliation? hmmmm? Could the boy that cried "Intolerance" need to take a quick look in the mirror? just asking!