Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    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.
    Really when?

    The National Review hasn't caught him or discovered anything here, it's simply that Judge Walker retired and is talking about cases.
    He's talking about things now that improperly affected cases he heard in his court. Bragging about misconduct.

    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.
    So? We're supposed to give him a pass on improper conduct because of that?

    Talk about being a dupe.
    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  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,987
    28 U.S.C. § 455 : US Code - Section 455: Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge


    (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
    shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
    impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
    (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following
    circumstances:
    (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
    party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
    concerning the proceeding;
    (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter
    in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law
    served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter,
    or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
    concerning it;
    (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
    capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness
    concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the
    merits of the particular case in controversy;
    (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his
    spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial
    interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to
    the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
    affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
    (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of
    relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
    (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or
    trustee of a party;
    (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
    (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
    substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
    (iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material
    witness in the proceeding.
    (c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and
    fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to
    inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse
    and minor children residing in his household.
    (d) For the purposes of this section the following words or
    phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
    (1) "proceeding" includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or
    other stages of litigation;
    (2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the
    civil law system;
    (3) "fiduciary" includes such relationships as executor,
    administrator, trustee, and guardian;
    (4) "financial interest" means ownership of a legal or
    equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director,
    adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party,
    except that:
    (i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that
    holds securities is not a "financial interest" in such
    securities unless the judge participates in the management of
    the fund;
    (ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable,
    fraternal, or civic organization is not a "financial interest"
    in securities held by the organization;
    (iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual
    insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings
    association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a "financial
    interest" in the organization only if the outcome of the
    proceeding could substantially affect the value of the
    interest;
    (iv) Ownership of government securities is a "financial
    interest" in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding
    could substantially affect the value of the securities.
    (e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the
    parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for
    disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for
    disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be
    accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record
    of the basis for disqualification.
    (f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if
    any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a
    matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial
    judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the
    appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or
    her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her
    spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a
    financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be
    substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not
    required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge,
    spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or
    herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the
    disqualification.


    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/I/21/455
    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. #23  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    You and logic haven't been on speaking terms for quite a few decades.

    Sherillyn Ifill mines the history of recusal motions filed before African-American judges:
    In the late 1970s and early 1980s -- as a bumper crop of minority federal district judges appointed by President Jimmy Carter presided over employment-discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- recusal motions were filed by defendants seeking to remove black judges from hearing these cases. Black judges pushed back firmly against attempts to question their impartiality and framed what has become the universally accepted understanding among the bench and bar: that judicial bias cannot be assumed based on the racial, gender or other status of the judge.
    In perhaps the most famous of these cases, lawyers representing the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell requested that federal district judge Constance Baker Motley recuse herself from hearing a case brought by women lawyers at the firm who charged discrimination in hiring and promotion. The law firm's motion for recusal was based on Judge Motley's status as a black woman and her professional experience as a former civil rights lawyer.... Motley refused to withdraw from presiding over the case, offering the now classic explanation that "if background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others, by virtue of the fact that all of them were attorneys, of a sex, often with distinguished law firm or public service backgrounds."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post

    Sherillyn Ifill mines the history of recusal motions filed before African-American judges:
    In the late 1970s and early 1980s -- as a bumper crop of minority federal district judges appointed by President Jimmy Carter presided over employment-discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- recusal motions were filed by defendants seeking to remove black judges from hearing these cases. Black judges pushed back firmly against attempts to question their impartiality and framed what has become the universally accepted understanding among the bench and bar: that judicial bias cannot be assumed based on the racial, gender or other status of the judge.
    In perhaps the most famous of these cases, lawyers representing the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell requested that federal district judge Constance Baker Motley recuse herself from hearing a case brought by women lawyers at the firm who charged discrimination in hiring and promotion. The law firm's motion for recusal was based on Judge Motley's status as a black woman and her professional experience as a former civil rights lawyer.... Motley refused to withdraw from presiding over the case, offering the now classic explanation that "if background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient grounds for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case, or many others, by virtue of the fact that all of them were attorneys, of a sex, often with distinguished law firm or public service backgrounds."
    Yup and here we go...
    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  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    AKA logic.
    And if you were actually using logic we might take you seriously. But, since you're not....
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,417
    Lets see here...
    Country over 14 trillion in debt and rising.
    Politicians in both parties selling out to corporostatism.
    Illegal aliens swarming over the borders.
    Islamofacists wanting to kill everybody including themselves.
    3 military actions to keep one group of muslims from killing another group of muslims, which they will do eventually anyway.
    Schools that don't teach.
    Government workers, union or otherwise, that want more money for less work.
    Cities, states and local governments that can't fund fire or police services.

    And I am concerned that some gay judge that everyone knew was gay overturned a vote to define marriage as only between a man and a woman when the government has no business being involved anyway?

    Not even in the top 50.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,391
    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?
    The ones that stand to make a financial gain from their own decision. Duh...

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Should former members of the military recuse themselves from all cases involving soldiers?
    If they will make a financial gain from the decision, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    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?
    This one makes no sense at all.
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    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
  •