Here is more on how Judge Walker has chosen to advance the SSM idea via the abuse of judicial review and the abuse of his privileged position as a federal judge.
Walker presided over the federal trial regading the California Marriage Amendment. [See the tag, Judge Walker, at the bottom of this blogpost.]
During the proceedings he turned his courtroom into a stage for a show trial; and at the conlclusion of the trial he wrote a so-called judicial opinion that reads like a pro-SSM pamphlet.
He has since resigned from the bench; his subsequent behavior strongly suggests that Walker is a public advocate for the SSM idea and that he previous role as a federal judge on the Marriage Amendment case was a thinly disguised precursor to his open political advocacy of SSM in the public square.
Walker has confirmed his homosexual orientation; he has also stated that for years he has been in a same-sex sexualized relationship; the latter, as noted by Playful Walrus in an earlier blogpost, ought to have prompted Walker to recognize that he had an interest in the outcome of the trial and, to that extent, was obliged to recuse himself from the case.
Also, Walker has used a portion of the video recording of the federal trial in a public speech which has been broadcast on C-Span. The recording was under seal; public use of the recording was, and is, prohibited by virtue of a decision by the US Supreme Court. Walker violated that; he also violated his own official reassurance that the recording was being made just for use in chambers and not for public dissemination.
The defenders of the California Marriage Amendment have filed a motion that argues for the court to order the return to the court all video recordings of that trial's proceedings. Read it here.
Below are snippets from the motion (with citations removed).
[Click here to read the rest of the blogpost.]
On February 18, 2011, Judge Walker delivered a speech at the University of Arizona in which he played a portion of the video recording of the cross-examination of one of Proponents’ expert witnesses in the trial of this case. The speech was video taped by C-SPAN, and it was subsequently broadcast on C-SPAN several times beginning on March 22. By publicly displaying the video recording of a portion of the trial testimony, Judge Walker (1) violated his own order placing the video recording of the trial under seal; (2) ignored the clear terms of the district court’s Local Rule 77-3, which prohibits the broadcast or other transmission of trial proceedings beyond “the confines of the courthouse”; (3) contravened the longstanding policies of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Judicial Council of this Court prohibiting public broadcast of trial proceedings; and (4) defied the United States Supreme Court’s prior decision in this case ruling that an earlier attempt by then-Chief Judge Walker to publicly broadcast the trial proceedings “complied neither with existing rules or policies nor the required procedures for amending them.”
But even more regrettable, perhaps, than all of this is the fact that Judge Walker’s use of the trial recording repudiated his own solemn commitment to Proponents in open court that, despite Proponents’ objection, the trial was being video recorded “simply for [his] use in chambers,” because it “would be quite helpful to [him] in preparing the findings of fact.” [...] In reliance on this assurance, Proponents took no action to prevent the recording of the trial. One of Proponents’ expert witnesses also relied on this assurance, deciding to testify after then-Chief Judge Walker had made clear that the trial recording would not be broadcast. Now a portion of his testimony has appeared on national television, and he regrets his decision to trust this assurance
What’s done is done. Judge Walker’s speech, and C-SPAN’s public dissemination of it, cannot be undone, and given that Judge Walker has recently retired from the federal bench, he cannot be disciplined.But he can be ordered to cease further unlawful and improper disclosures of the trial recordings, or any portion thereof, and to return to this Court any copies of the trial recordings in his possession, custody, or control. We respectfully request that he be ordered to do so. We also request that Appellees be ordered to return their copies of the trial recordings, which were provided to them by then-Chief Judge Walker for their use in closing argument below and in the appeal to this Court. Putting aside that providing copies of the trial recordings to Appellees also violated Local Rule 77-3, the policies of the Judicial Conference and this Court’s Judicial Council, and then-Chief Judge Walker’s assurances in open court, the purpose for which they were provided has now been fulfilled, and Appellees’ continued possession of the recordings can no longer be justified.
[...]
At the opening of trial later that morning, Appellees asked Chief Judge Walker to continue video recording the proceedings for the purpose of later public dissemination “in the event the stay is lifted” on January 13. Chief Judge Walker accepted Appellees’ proposal over Proponents’ objection that recording the proceedings was not “consistent with the spirit of” the temporary stay issued by the Supreme Court.Id . Far from lifting the stay, on January 13, the Supreme Court instead “grant[ed] the application for a stay of the District Court’s order of January 7, 2010, pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari or the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus.”
[...]
Chief Judge Walker stated that the unamended “local rule permits … recording for purposes of use in chambers and that is customarily done when we have these remote courtrooms or the overflow courtrooms,” and that that the recording “would be quite helpful to [him] in preparing the findings of fact.” Chief Judge Walker stated that the unamended “local rule permits … recording for purposes of use in chambers and that is customarily done when we have these remote courtrooms or the overflow courtrooms,” and that that the recording “would be quite helpful to [him] in preparing the findings of fact.” Chief Judge Walker then repeated his position that he was making the recordings only for limited, private use: after noting that “the [unamended] local rule [prohibits] ‘[t]he taking of photographs, public broadcasting or televising, or recording for those purposes,’” Chief Judge Walker stated: “So the recording is not being made for those purposes, but simply for use in chambers.”
[...]
On June 29, 2010, after closing argument, Proponents asked Appellees to return all copies of the trial recordings in their possession to the district court. When they refused, Proponents asked Chief Judge Walker to “order … [Appellees] to return to the Court immediately all copies of the trial video in their possession.”
[...]
On August 4, 2010, Chief Judge Walker denied Proponents’ motion to order the return of all copies of the trial recordings. Instead, he “DIRECTED” the district court clerk “to file the trial recording under seal as part of the record,” and permitted Appellees to “retain their copies of the trial recording pursuant to the terms of the protective order.”
[...]
On February 18, 2011, Judge Walker, having stepped down as Chief at the end of December 2010, gave his speech at the University of Arizona.
[...]
The trial recordings were not the personal property of Judge Walker, for him to use as he pleased; he had access to them only by virtue of his role as the judicial officer presiding in this case. So, when he played a portion of the trial recordings during his February 18 speech (which was then disseminated nationally by C-SPAN), he violated all of these prohibitions.
[...]
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should order that former judge Walkercease further disclosures of the trial recordings in this case, or any portion thereof, and that all copies of the trial recordings in the possession, custody, or control of any party to this case or former judge Walker be returned promptly to the Court and held by the court clerk under seal.
Some legal orginization should submit a brief to the ninth curcuit &/or SCOTUS (once this case arives) highlighting the abuses of process like this one.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I will do a post relating some of them.
They are legion. The fact that Gov. Shwartz. & A.G. Brown did not defend the Constiutional Amendment, and that President Obama has reffused to defend DOMA is one important ingrediant.
I feel like one of the only posters here who is studied in the ramifications of Judicial politics. Its a subtle art.
These refusals and the multiple abuses of power around same-sex "marriage" litigation are VERY important factors.
You can be assured that Scalia and the other 3 traditional jurists will be taking note of these abuses.
You can also be assured that Kennedy and the other 4 justices will be aware of the abuses and be persuaded by them.
In short this is ample evidence of the court system breaking down, our Justice system falling apart.
This is not hyperbowl and will be more determinate of the outcome of a same-sex "marriage" case than people realize.
To hand SS "M" a victory would be to encourage such abuses.
The fact that State Courts have been the ones engaged in abuses as well as lower federal courts does in fact threaten the integrity of our judicial process.
If anyone want me to explain in further detail please ask. Posters could also list past abuses and I could include them in a post on the sunbject.
"Walker has confirmed his homosexual orientation; he has also stated that for years he has been in a same-sex sexualized relationship; the latter, as noted by Playful Walrus in an earlier blogpost, ought to have prompted Walker to recognize that he had an interest in the outcome of the trial and, to that extent, was obliged to recuse himself from the case."
ReplyDeleteBy your logic, shouldn't a straight judge also be recused from the case? Should a woman judge not be allowed to preside over a case on abortion?