Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Pulpfishin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Aww, you brought your sock puppet with you. How cute.
    What's the problem, this topic striking a little too close to home Mr. Garrison?

    http://www.southparkstudios.se/clips/sp_vid_152303/
    Give a liberal a fish - he will eat for a day
    Teach a liberal to fish - he will come back tomorrow wanting more free fish!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    He didn't act improperly.
    Oh but he did.

    In taking part in the Perry case, Judge Walker was deciding whether Proposition 8 would bar him and his same-sex partner from marrying. Whether Walker had any subjective interest in marrying his same-sex partner — a matter on which Walker hasn’t spoken — is immaterial under section 455(a). (If Walker did have such an interest, his recusal also would be required by other rules requiring that a judge disqualify himself when he knows that he has an “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”)
    The law is the law. And he crossed the line.


    Amazing how you're willing to look the other way on recusal and lack of impartiality in the legal system when it's one of your pet lefty topics.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    According the law he did. .
    No, according to Edward Whelan he did.

    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    A

    Your bias on this is as bad as the judge's.
    So tell me which judges need to recuse themselves in a Second Amendment case. The ones who own guns or the ones who don't? The ones who concealed carry or the ones who don't? The ones who hunt or the ones who don't?

    Should former members of the military recuse themselves from all cases involving soldiers?

    How could the Supreme Court hear a Ku Klux Klan case with three Jews, a Catholic and a black guy who ought to recuse by your reasoning?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    No, according to Edward Whelan he did.



    So tell me which judges need to recuse themselves in a Second Amendment case. The ones who own guns or the ones who don't? The ones who concealed carry or the ones who don't? The ones who hunt or the ones who don't?

    Should former members of the military recuse themselves from all cases involving soldiers?

    How could the Supreme Court hear a Ku Klux Klan case with three Jews, a Catholic and a black guy who ought to recuse by your reasoning?
    Does he or doesn't he gain something from the case? if he does fag boy he should (if he had any honor) recuse himself but perverts will do almost anything to advance their agenda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    No, according to Edward Whelan he did.
    Wrong again. This says he did:

    Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law (2d ed. 2010)

    http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/judicialdq.pdf/$file/judicialdq.pdf


    So tell me which judges need to recuse themselves in a Second Amendment case. The ones who own guns or the ones who don't? The ones who concealed carry or the ones who don't? The ones who hunt or the ones who don't?
    Red herring.

    Should former members of the military recuse themselves from all cases involving soldiers?
    Strawman

    How could the Supreme Court hear a Ku Klux Klan case with three Jews, a Catholic and a black guy who ought to recuse by your reasoning?


    You got anything intelligent to add to this or even make a credible defense of this judge and his improper actions? Or are you just going to keep flailing?
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    Does he or doesn't he gain something from the case? if he does fag boy he should (if he had any honor) recuse himself but perverts will do almost anything to advance their agenda.
    No worries. Now that this has come to light his ruling will be vacated and the will of the people of California who voted in favor of Prop 8 will be restored.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    No worries. Now that this has come to light his ruling will be vacated and the will of the people of California who voted in favor of Prop 8 will be restored.
    This hasn't "come to light", his sexual orientation was well known and openly discussed at the time. The ruling will not be vacated because of this article. You're such a dupe sometimes.

    The National Review hasn't caught him or discovered anything here, it's simply that Judge Walker retired and is talking about cases.

    BTW, he represented the US Olympic Committee against the Gay Olympics for trademark, and won against the Gay Olympics which is now known as the Gay Games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post



    Red herring.



    Strawman



    AKA logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,980
    I'll give this more of an intelligent reply than Nova is capable of.

    No one is saying that a gay man can't decide on issues involving other homosexuals.

    The impropriety comes form the fact he failed to disclose issues that could potentially affect his decision or decision making process before he heard the case. Things that could have allowed others to decide if he was capable of being impartial in ruling on the case.

    Instead he chose to hide them which opens the door to justifiable criticism of whether or not he was able to give the case a fair hearing.


    The judge ruled that barring gay marriage presents a financial hardship to gay couples. In removing that alleged hardship...he and his partner benefit.

    He stood to gain from his own ruling. Thus he should have...had be been truly impartial and unbiased...not to mention truthful...removed himself from the case.

    If a judge in W. Texas was hearing an imminent domain case between an Oil Company and a person who held mineral rights to a piece of land the oil company wanted...and the judge ruled in favor of the oil company...and it later turned out that the judge...because of his ruling...gained financially from stock he held in that oil company that he failed to disclose prior to the start of the case...he'd be just as ethically wrong in not recusing himself from the case as this judge is.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    AKA logic.
    You and logic haven't been on speaking terms for quite a few decades.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •