…just remember Judge Walker Vaughn was appointed to the bench by a Republican president – George H.W. Bush.
Kinda flies in the face of the argument about all those “activist judges” being liberals.
9 thoughts on “And before anyone screams about the “activist judge” in the California Prop 8 case…”
Comments are closed.
I thought the Citizens United ruling ended once and for all the argument over who were the “activist judges”.
Actually, he was appointed by Ronald Reagan, over the objections of the GL community over his role in the Gay Olympics case. Walker, incidentally, is also gay.
Just because he was appointed by a Republican, doesn’t mean he’s not a liberal or an activist judge. The ruling looked pretty activist to me. His ruling was based on a social consideration, rather than a constitutional one.
It seems fairly obvious that a judge should protect people from frivolous tyranny of a majority. It’s a tradition that has served this country well. Few people today relatively would call interracial marriage an abomination, yet most people did when it was ruled that marriage shall not be restricted based on race. This is the same thing all over again, and hopefully and fifty years time people will look back at the anti-equality fight with the same disdain most look back at those old bigoted laws.
You obviously were the only one amongst us to read all 135 pages of his decision. So please, for the benefit of us all, provide point by point references to his decision and how they are not based on constitutional considerations.
Ok wise guy, where do you find the right to marriage in the constitution? If you are saying equal protection, then how can states all have different requirements regarding marriage like age you can get married, if you can marry your first or second cousin, etc. Also it is currently limited to two people.
No, this judge just said there was no harm in gay marriage, so then it must be permitted. When in fact government certainly has a right to regulate the institution as it sees fit.
Hey, where in the Constitution say that I have a right to seek a higher education? Or where does it say that I even have a right to breathe? It doesn’t. It becomes an issue when a law is passed that tries to define what something is that suits one particular segment of the population at the expense and exclusion of another. THAT’S when the Constitution gets involved, and that’s where it takes a jurist to try to make sense of it.
Please, I thought you could do better than that.
How about you Zach, remember that Judge Walker Vaughn is an openly gay judge and was first selected by Reagan. Flies in the face of your single neuron thought process of the right hating gays.
And don’t get me started on black civil rights and which side has done more.
Calling him an openly gay judge is a stretch, especially at the time of his appointment.
as for who has done more for civil rights, you know as well as I do, that to say the republicans have is not being honest…