Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

9th Circuit Judge Reinhardt denies recusal motion from ProtectMarriage.com

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Prop 8 trial

By Adam Bink

Yesterday, as Eden noted, Yes on 8 side (technically, ProtectMarriage.com) filed a motion asking that Roy Reinhardt, one of the 9th Circuit judges selected for the panel to hear the appeal on Monday, recuse himself because his wife is Ramona Ripston, the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, and the ACLU has opposed Prop 8. No word yet on whether folks of Yes On 8’s ilk will be asking Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any number of cases because his wife was heavily involved with the Tea Party movement.

“So long as a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, recusal is required,” they wrote in a motion asking Reinhardt to disqualify himself, AP’s Lisa Leff reported. “The facts of this case would plainly lead a reasonable person to conclude that Judge Reinhardt’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Thursday morning, Reinhardt said he would not recuse himself:

“Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT) I have before me defendants-intervenors-appellants’ motion to disqualify myself from this appeal. I have not hesitated to recuse from cases in the past when doing so was warranted by the circumstances. See Khatib v. County of Orange, 622 F.3d 1074, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010); Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 586 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009); Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2008); Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 913, 914 (9th Cir. 2003); Valeria v. Davis, 320 F.3d 1014, 1015 n.** (9th Cir. 2003); Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 284 F.3d 1039, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002); Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 711 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, for reasons that I shall provide in a memorandum to be filed in due course, I am certain that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would [not] conclude that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sao Paulo State of the Federated Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 233 (2002) (per curiam). I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so. The motion is therefore DENIED. [7564262]”

Reinhardt is viewed by many legal observers to very likely be one of a two-judge majority in our favor, so this appears to be very good news. And on the whole, it may be the beginning of anti-equality advocates’ effort to discredit the court’s decision if it comes down in favor of equality- before it comes down at all.

96 Comments

  • 1. Michelle Evans  |  December 2, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Go for it Judge Reinhardt!

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:00 am

    The Yes on 8 side isn't done with this – are they?

    What are their options now?

    scribin too

  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Also, here is the SCRIBD doc.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/44539655/CA9Doc-284

  • 4. Alan E.  |  December 2, 2010 at 7:56 am

    The only option they have is to whine and ask for money from their followers.

  • 5. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:07 am

    !!!! Go Adam! on a roll today for certain!

  • 6. adambink  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Thanks brother.

  • 7. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:07 am

    Motion DENIED (and now I'm PISSED)

  • 8. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:08 am

    why are you pissed? this is good

  • 9. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Sorry, I was speaking from Judge Reinhardt perspective.

  • 10. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Yes, I read it that way, too, elliom.

    It's always a very risky move to ask a judge to recuse himself or herself. If he or she doesn't, then they're going to hear your case but they will remember that you insulted them by stating that they couldn't be impartial.

  • 11. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Must. Cleek. The. Button.

  • 12. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Maybe this is their strategy. Piss the judge off by asking for a recusal, then argue the judge was biased by the request, and should have recused himself.

  • 13. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Never heard of that happening. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, though.

  • 14. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Given their previous stratagies ("I don't need evidence."), I'd not rule it out.

  • 15. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:25 am

    [whine] How could he possibly rule in our favor when he clearly thinks we're whiny little brats? It's not fair!!!! [/whine]

  • 16. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:27 am

    nightshayde:

    Excactly what I was thinking.

    "SCOTUS, you MUST overturn the ruling, because the judge was biased against us because we accused him of being biased against us. It's not our fault, it's his."

  • 17. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:39 am

    Weird way my mind works, this just came to me:

    We can call this the Ron White defense, as the logic is very similar to his "I got thrown out of a bar" routine…

    "I didn't want to be drunk in public, Officer. I wanted to be drunk in a bar. They THREW me into pubic. Arrest them."

    [youtube =http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdz_-06wGqc&fs=1&hl=en_US]

  • 18. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:46 am

    "They threw me into pubic." Must have been quite a throw.

  • 19. fiona64  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:52 am

    I love that Ron White routine.

    Love,
    Fiona (who finds herself saying "you can't fix stupid" more than she wishes …)

  • 20. Randy  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Supporters of same-sex marriage have organized a march to the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center in Hillcrest Saturday night to call attention to their cause two days before the divisive issue is argued before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Similar events will take place across California and in states including Massachusetts and Kansas, organizers said.

    In San Diego, people will gather at the corner of 6th and University avenues at 6 p.m. Saturday to march east through Hillcrest to 3909 Centre St. The event is being sponsored by the San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality.

    A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will hear arguments on both sides of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage that voters passed in November 2008 and a judge struck down on constitutional grounds in August. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed U.S. District Chief Justice Vaughn Walker's decision until it can rule on the issue.

    Monday's hearing, featuring lawyers but no witnesses, will begin at 10 a.m. PDT, last for about two hours and be televised live on C-SPAN. A ruling could come early next year, but the losing side is widely expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, extending a court battle for years

  • 21. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Randy, is there a facebook link to this event? I have many friends in SD.

  • 22. Randy  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Here it is. Sorry, should've put it on the first time! http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/02/sa

  • 23. tess  |  December 2, 2010 at 7:01 am

    I've been looking, but could not find anything on marches or rallies in Los Angeles – if anyone has any info on that I'd appreciate it!

  • 24. Randy  |  December 2, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Don't see anything either. Maybe try the Center?
    McDonald/Wright Building
    1625 N. Schrader Boulevard
    Los Angeles, CA 90028-6213
    Ph: 323-993-7400

  • 25. Mark  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:09 am

    I am afraid we have not heard the end of this yet.

  • 26. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:15 am

    It is more about bringing in the money for them. This is yet another item they will spin into their persecution complex so that they can continue to fleece their sheeple of their life savings, thereby guaranteeing that they themselves will be able to retire and live like kings once they move to the same islands where their offshore bank accounts are located.

  • 27. AB  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Given all of this, is it still prop8trialtracker.com's position that we should not ask Judge Smith to recuse himself?

  • 28. elliom  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:21 am

    It's still MY opinion. I think doing so would be both inappropriate, and do more harm than good.

  • 29. Wine Country Lurker  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:16 am

    What would be freaking funny is for "our side" to really make "the other side" look like fools, by now filing a brief statement stating that they are NOT going to ask the Mormon judge to recuse himself, on the grounds that our side is confident in his ability, and indeed his professional integrity as a sitting federal judge, to rule solely on the merits of the case after his careful review of the ample trial record, rather than be influenced by any opinions expressed or implied of family members, friends, acquaintences, alma mater alumni, etc….

  • 30. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:33 am

    While funny, it would also look like our side was kissing a$$. The thought just made me think of Nellie from Little House on the Prairie.

    Fun to think about it, though.

  • 31. Wine Country Lurker  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Terribly funny to think about. My version concludes with a collective NOM head implosion upon reading a filing about us being perfectly fine with a Mormon judge.

    Wait — our legal team IS perfectly fine with a Mormon judge. Let the imploding commence! 😉

  • 32. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:22 am

    I can't speak for everyone, but that is my view.

    Then again, we're not parties and we can't actually ask.

  • 33. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:23 am

    I think staking out the moral high ground is a good thing. Gives us a little more ammo for slamming the other side & their whiny ways.

    Of course, I might be singing a different tune if two of the three judges were affiliated with anti-equality religious institutions.

  • 34. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:28 am

    I would not even think to ask Judge Smith to recuse himself. His religion doesn't matter.

  • 35. AB  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:38 am

    That will be convenient when we end up with a panel that has a predetermined conclusion that they will not uphold the district court's conclusions.
    They try everything they can to win, and we respond by crossing our fingers and hoping. That's how cases are lost.

  • 36. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:45 am

    On what grounds? That he's a member of the LDS church? That really isn't grounds, as it says nothing about his own feelings. Asking a judge to recuse himself is always risky. How much more so when your only grounds are religious stereotyping.

  • 37. AB  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:53 am

    You're mistaken to assume that it would be upon religious grounds, Ann. I am not advocating recusal upon religious grounds, that would be silly.
    But you miss a key point if you think that someone who attended a school–who has a stake in the school, even if only through alumni relations–that contributed money and advocacy to the Yes on 8 side.
    That relationship is an associational relationship, one which is equally as influential as the associational relationship between a judge and his or her spouses participation in a political advocacy group.
    In other words, if Reinhart's wife as an ACLU participant demands his recusal, than Smith's stake in the success of a University which has argued against Prop 8 is equally a cause for recusal.
    Given that, we would be fools to let them recuse a judge who has a record of supporting marriage equality, and not recusing the one judge who holds the exact opposite opinion for the exact same reason.

  • 38. AB  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:02 am

    I should be clear, it seems unwise for us to file a motion of recusal. I will agree with that. What I am saying is that, if we find ourselves in a fight over Reinhart's recusal, we miss a key opportunity if our response isn't something along the lines of: "If Reinhart has to recuse himself, then this sets a precedent that would cause Smith to recuse HIMSELF too."
    We shouldn't file a similar motion, but we shouldn't let this argument be far from our minds in responding to the existing one.

  • 39. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:13 am

    We know they are not going to get Reinhardt to recuse himself, and it would be very foolish of our side to try the same failure of a tactic on Smith. As has been much discussed around here, we have to trust that the judge will be honest enough to rule on the case at hand, not any religious affiliations he may or may not have. Attendence at BYU is not hinged on membership in the Mormon church, and there is no evidence that Smith has tended to rule conservatively because of any such relationship.

    Judges have personal opinions. They are human beings, we can't expect them not to. What we can and do expect is that they will rule on the merits of the case and the basis of law (even if their own reading of the law tends to be more conservative, and we need to accept that this happens and is perfectly reasonable) rather than their own personal religious beliefs. Were Smith to render a ruling that is based on religion, that would be something our side could object to. If he rules conservatively and it is based firmly in law, we may not agree, and we may appeal, but we have no cause to object to him as a judge, and we would be attempting to circumvent the legal system by doing so.

    The good news is that in this particular case, there is very little (practically nothing) in the law or in the case itself that supports a ruling in favor of Prop 8. They presented practically nothing; in fact they claimed they did not need to provide any defense at one point (true but foolhardy and ultimately a losing argument), and had their own witnesses pull out after depositions but before the trial. The Plaintiff's case was rock solid, well presented, and backed by both tons of fact, and tons of law and with many credible expert witnesses including some strong testimony from the Defendants own AWOL witnesses' depositions in support of the Plaintiffs case.

  • 40. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:14 am

    OK, I'm glad we agree that advocating for recusal on religious grounds would be silly. I'm afraid I see the alumni relations thing to be just as tenuous, though. Maybe I'm a bad alum, but I certainly don't agree with everything my alma maters do and wouldn't hesitate to take contrary positions.

    I don't believe Reinhardt's wife's affiliation with the ACLU/SC requires recusal, and I don't think Smith's affiliation with BYU is grounds for recusal, either.

    On what do you base your opinion that Smith is against marriage equality? Because he went to BYU? We don't know his opinion, as far as I am aware.

  • 41. AB  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:24 am

    We do agree on that recusal on religious grounds is silly. (That is why anonygrl's post is entirely nonresponsive).
    The associational bond is as follows, BYU routinely hosts anti-marriage equality events, has tried to pioneer conversion therapy, (may have contributed money in the Prop 8 outcome), and has even censored a student who wrote a letter to the editor in support of our side in the Prop 8 case. The argument then would be as follows: if Smith pays any alumni dues, or if it can be found that he has contacted BYU in regards to this case, and since BYU has an existent stake in the outcome of this case, then Smith has as much of a reason to vote a given way than does Reinhart.
    Reading the recusal motion, the argument they make is simple: Reinhart's wife supports a group that advocates for a particular outcome in this case. It seems to me, that there is a fairly obvious claim–which can easily be substantiated–that says that Smith (and not even his spouse, but he himself) has an associational link to an institution that advocates for a particular outcome in this case.
    The argument, then would not be (contrary to anonygrl's post) that we should just randomly file our own motion for recusal. Our argument should be that, if (later in the case) this becomes an issue then we should argue that there is no distinction between the claim made in their recusal motion, and one we could make in a subsequent recusal motion, which we all agree would be absurd.

  • 42. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:34 am

    I'm not certain what timetable you think pertains to recusal motions, but I really don't think there is a subsequent time for these. It's pretty much now or never.

    Also, each recusal motion should stand or fail on its own merits. Each has nothing to do with the other.

    I'm afraid I'm not following you.

  • 43. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Is that kind of relationship with one's alma mater something people with post-graduate degrees develop on a regular basis?

    IANAL, nor do I have anything beyond a Bachelors degree — but in my professional capacity, I really don't give a rat's backside what my alma mater says or does. If they start advocating something I'm against, I would likely speak up — but I don't understand why a lawyer would have his/her opinions influenced by anything (other than what was included in the educational process itself) a university says or does.

  • 44. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:48 am

    @Nightshayde, I certainly don't have that kind of a relationship with my law school. And although I was proud to have gone there, I don't really care that much what they do now. I was annoyed when they changed their name because that affects me, in that I have to decide whether to stick to the name it had when I attended or go with the new name. And I liked the old one, so I'm kinda annoyed. But otherwise, I don't care that much.

  • 45. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:56 am

    I am not sure that my reply is non-responsive, as the only reason to bring up the BYU connection is because it is a religious institution. All of the things you mention as concerns are based on Mormon beliefs. However, even if that were not the case, it is just as silly to bring it up as to bring up religion.

    If he made a donation to his alma matter, that does not indicate that he supports every position that his alma matter takes, any more than a similar donation to his church means the same.

    And getting into the "well, if THAT one should be recused, then the OTHER one…" argument seems an awful lot like playing "he said/she said" which is a discussion I don't see that we should even stoop to having.

    The Proponents look like morons for bringing it up. Let us not join them.

  • 46. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:48 am

    I would absoluetely NOT ask Judge Smith to recuse his self nor would I expect anyone on the plaintifs team to do so
    Don't see a need to do so…….

  • 47. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Isn't the hearing on standing scheduled for an hour or two before the "regular" hearing?

    Does this indicate that the judges will likely decide the Pro-8 side actually does have standing? Why schedule the "regular" hearing so soon after the standing hearing if you don't think there will be a need for a regular hearing?

    What happens if the proponents are NOT given standing? Would that get appealed to the full 9th, or would the appeal go straight to the SCOTUS?

    When do you think the earliest is that CA same-sex couples will be able to start tying the knot again?

  • 48. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:24 am

    They're both scheduled for the Monday morning, with only a short recess in the middle. I don't think the scheduling indicates much of anything about the standing issue.

  • 49. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:53 am

    I believe that an appeal about standing could be made to either the entire 9th Circuit or SCOTUS (I am not sure what the preferences are?)

    I would guess that the earliest that CA might have marriage equality would be early next year, and tht only if any appeals (either on standing or on a stay of any other ruling) to SCOTUS are denied.

    If the 9th rules there is no standing, and SCOTUS upholds that ruling and is very quick about it, then early next year is the likeliest.

    If the 9th rules no standing and SCOTUS overturns that ruling, or the 9th rules there is standing and rules anything one way or the other about the actual constitutionality of Prop 8, then the case will undoubtedly drag on some with further appeals and a trip to SCOTUS before it is resolved, which means we might be looking at anything up to several years.

  • 50. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Guess that gives me time to find more silk flowers for more bouquets on sale. I still have to put the ribbon on the bouquets I made, too.

  • 51. Kate  |  December 2, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Nightshayde, I'd like to contribute a few bucks to your project. Do you have a PayPal address where I could send a donation?

  • 52. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Kathleen has a timeline somewhere, the soonest was 2011 and the furthest was 2014. I will try to find it.

  • 53. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Here it is

    The viewers guide to Prop 8
    http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/11/29/viewers

  • 54. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Wow – there's a lot of information in that piece. Thank you for the link!

  • 55. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:30 am

    !!!

  • 56. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:22 am

    ProtectMarriage.com knew their request would be denied, now they can play the victim. Wah! Wah! Send more money!

  • 57. adambink  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Yeah- like I wrote above, there's a whole messaging element to this. Sometimes doing something when you know you'll lose is worth doing anyway, from an advocacy perspective.

  • 58. Martin the Brit  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Exactly, it's all about creating a narrative of persecution to rile up supporters.

    I'm starting to get really tired of Christian persecution stories appearing in certain newspapers here in the UK.

    They all contain the following elements (or a similar configuration) :

    1. A gay or lesbian individual is denied a service and complains.

    2. The person denying the service, who happens to be Christian, is found in breach of UK antidiscrimination laws.

    3. The person in breach of the law claims persecution and mounts a legal challenge alleging that their faith entitles them to an exemption.

    This is usually proceeded by a court decision which denies their claim in no uncertain terms, but by that point it doesn't matter because they've already martyred themselves for the 'Christian cause' -_-.

    The media then jumps on the story and tries to present it as if it's about 'conflicting rights'. Yeah, show me a situation where GLBT people are able to legally discriminate against people of faith and I might agree with you.

  • 59. JPM  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Is there any possible appeal of a recusal decision?

    Can the ultimate judgment of the court be challenged on appeal on the basis that Reinhart did not recuse himself but should hae?

  • 60. anonygrl  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:55 am

    The opinion of our lawyer types around here seems to be that it is unlikely that a court would take "he should have recused himself" into account when viewing appeals. Perhaps not impossible, but highly unlikely.

  • 61. JonT  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:38 am

  • 62. Wren  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:52 am

    I searched CSPAN's website for its schedule for Monday. So far nothing on the prop 8 case which is supposed to be televised live on CSPAN. Anyone know the time of the arguments and where online I can watch them?

  • 63. Marlene  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:06 am

    It might be on C-SPAN 3, Wren…. I'd check sometime Sunday night to get a firmer look at the schedule for Monday.

  • 64. Larry Little  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Recuse Maggie Gallagher and give her a three quart enema to get rid of all those discriminatory policies that are plugging up her digestive system.

  • 65. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Better yet, a 3H enema until clear. Of course, clearing out everything that is clogging Maggie Gallagher up and confusing her may take some time to accomplish. And probably several teams of reputable, board-certified, licensed psychotherapists.

  • 66. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:19 am

    I know not to read anything around lunch time! But no, had to be eating at this very moment : )

  • 67. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:25 am

    LOL — I'm about to go get lunch. I will take warning and exercise all due precautions!

  • 68. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:24 am

    What happened, LLB? Did you spew your lunch all over the computer screen?

  • 69. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:29 am

    No…it just kind of ruined my appetite. Lunch is still sitting on the printer right now. Maggie-ewe-stuff isn't appetizing.

  • 70. Steven  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:59 am

    geez what did they suspect? lol waste of time…………..

  • 71. nightshayde  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:15 am

    I'm pretty sure they expected our side to BMW about the LDS judge, which would give them the opportunity to scream about religious discrimination.

    Since our side didn't do that, they had to come up with SOMETHING.

  • 72. Bill  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:07 am

    The NOM-heads will only be satisfied when the 3 judge panel is comprised of Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and Robert P. George.

  • 73. Jon  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:12 am

    OK, haters, you ask a question, you get an answer. The answer is no. Keep on hatin'!

  • 74. CaliGirl  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Hahahaha. *moons haters*

    Is it just me, or is the judge's response dripping with sarcasm?

  • 75. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Perhaps Judge Reinhart and Judge Walker both have the same type of wry wit. Read Judge Walker's ruling. He really got some zingers in there, especially when he pointed out that he could see no harm to the Yes on H8 side in allowing Prop H8 to be immediately overturned, since none of them had expressed an interest in marrying anyone of the same gender.

  • 76. Carol  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:33 am

    So, they perceive a judge with demonstrated lifelong commitment to civil rights to be biased in favor of extending equality to everyone.

    They're probably afraid he believes in the Constitution.

  • 77. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Actually, what they are afraid of is that he will base his ruling on the Constitution instead of their misinterpreations, misquotings and redactions of the Bible.

  • 78. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:47 am

    If NOM actually believed the Judge would recuse himself – then we have proof positive that their minds are a bit unbalanced.

  • 79. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:49 am

    I don't think they believed it for a minute.

  • 80. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:37 am

    More than just a bit unbalanced. These folks are totally out there!

  • 81. Carpool Cookie  |  December 2, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Even if they knew they had no chance in h#ll of Judge Reinhardt recusing himself, they had to formally bring it up now so they'd be able to have it as a matter to appeal (after they lose).

    They have future headlines to milk, and hours to bill for…

  • 82. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:54 am

    I don't know anything about this Judge yet…

    New Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Named

    DES MOINES, Iowa — Justice Mark Cady has been selected to serve as chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, officials said Thursday.

    Cady's appointment will start on Jan. 1.

    "Once I assume the duties of chief justice in January, my foremost concern will be to do all I can to support the work of Iowa's high caliber court system and to expand the public's access to justice," said Cady in a statement released on Thursday. "I look forward to working with Gov. Branstad and the legislature on these and other matters affecting the administration of justice."

    More: http://www.kcci.com/r/25999215/detail.html

  • 83. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Here is a Notable Ruling of his:

    Varnum vs. Brien: Cady wrote the opinion for the landmark ruling overturning the statewide ban on same sex marriage.

    NOM isn't going to like this!
    http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Mark_Cady

  • 84. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Neither is the new governor!

  • 85. Alex Gill-Gerards  |  December 2, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Wow this really took a bite out of the NOM rear! lol

  • 86. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Well, I guess it's all over…Yes on 8 has decided not to further this recusal issue.

    Prop. 8 lawyers back off attempt to get judge removed from appeal hearing

    U.S. Circuit Court Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt today denied a motion to recuse himself from the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage federal appeal hearing Monday.

    Proposition 8 author and attorney Andy Pugno also said today that measure supporters won't keep pressing to get Reinhardt removed.

    "We accept Judge Reinhardt's decision and plan no further action," Pugno said. "But we felt we had no choice but to ask him to remove himself in light of his wife's extensive involvement in this very case."

    Lawyers for Proposition 8 supporters filed a motion Wednesday for Reinhardt to step down from the three-judge panel that will preside over the appeal because his wife is the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

    Because the ACLU chapter and Ramona Ripston, Reinhardt's wife, have been actively involved in the state and federal challenges against Proposition 8, "Judge Reinhardt's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," the measure's attorneys said in papers filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

    Reinhardt, in an initial written response today, denied the motion for recusal and said "I have not hesitated to recuse from cases in the past when doing so was warranted by circumstances."

    The 79-year-old judge listed a number of cases as examples. In the case of the Proposition 8, he said, "I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so." He said he will provide a memorandum "in due course" detailing his reasons.

    Attorneys for Proposition 8 noted in their motion that the ACLU of Southern California filed a friend of the court brief supporting the federal challenge to Proposition 8 when it was before a lower court. Now the case now before the 9th Circuit panel.

    More: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/1

  • 87. Ann S.  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Now they've laid the groundwork for whining about him later, so they're done.

  • 88. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Sounds about right…I can hear NOM now, "it wasn't that our stance on this subject that was wrong, or that our lawyer'n was less than mediocre…it was that "activist judge" – that's why we lost – marriage is between One man and One woman."

    Fail

  • 89. Alan E.  |  December 2, 2010 at 8:03 am

    I guess Andy Pugno is just pissed that he didn't win his race. That's why they tried to get him to recuse himself.

  • 90. Manilow  |  December 2, 2010 at 6:27 am

    It makes me so mad that just because these jerks at Yeson8 can't see through their own baises (biasi?) that they think no one else can either! I just wish they were reasonable people – but it must be too much to ask.

  • 91. Chris From CO  |  December 2, 2010 at 7:29 am

    I just posted this on NOM website I had to post it here were it will be seen. Im not going to lie I acted like a nine year old kid who just got their way. But it still was fun to do.

    Ha Ha. You wont post this anyways. So Ha Ha. Our side left Judge Smith alone but you couldn't resist, just one more win for us take that. I have to say it agian Ha Ha. Better luck to you in the supreme court. LOL. H8ters never win. I learned that on the play ground in school come on your adults. Learn something. This is so fun. Ha Ha………. Have a good day "It get's worse"

  • 92. Fake Name  |  December 2, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha , "It gets worse…" You crack me up, he he he he he he, ha ha ha ha ha."It gets worse" ha ha ha, you are so funny. That has the making of a You Tube video, "It gets worse H8ters"

  • 93. Ronnie  |  December 2, 2010 at 8:13 am

    I just got home from NYC…It was so great to come home see that once again the anti-equality side has been told..NO!!!…..I would like to add……"QUIT YOUR BITCHING!!!"…..roflmgayao…..<3…Ronnie

  • 94. Rhie  |  December 2, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Checkin the box

  • 95. Charlie Galvin  |  December 2, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Now that Judge Reinhardt has declined to recuse himself, what are they going to claim next? That our vast homosexual conspiracy, which got "one of ours" assigned to the case and then intimidated their witnesses with cameras, has now managed to subvert the random selection of the appellate panel to slip in enough "activists" to be sure we win?

  • 96. Sagesse  |  December 2, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Well done, Judge Reinhardt.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!