And no, it is NOT the BYU graduate possibly Mormon judged Smith. Judge Reinhardt is being asked to disqualify himself because his WIFE heads the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Gay_Marriage_Trial_Judges_541800C.shtml

Ok, I am trying to wrap my brain around this one. One judged is being asked to step down because of what someone other than the judged is associated with, while another judged that has clearly been associated with TSCC, which was highly active in passing prop 8, is not asked to step down?

These people that are fighting for prop 8 are NUTS. The idea that husband and wife can't have vastly different views on this subject is nuts, just nuts. It nuts to assume that Judge Reinhardt's and his wife share similar views on any particular subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 02:36AM by MJ.

A righteous wife would agree with her husband on everything, right? Excuse me gotta go barf....

These people. Grasping at straws.

Hahaha! Oh..... that sits so wrong doesn't it? Agreeing and smiling and nodding and having no opinions of our own that would be disagreeable. Let me go barf too....

I personally love all this hype on Prop 8. It appears there are many out there who are now questioning this faith based on their disagreement with TSCC's stand, at least based on this Recovery Board and all the comments from people on it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 10:38PM by MJ.

. . . leading some to argue that this should therefore disqualify him from ruling on the matter, given that his spouse's outspoken opposition might unduly influence his views, as well as undermine his ability to issue any future opinion on the subject in any sort of impartial fashion.

It cuts both ways, folks.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 10:42PM by steve benson.

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas should disqualify himself for his inability to separate his dogmatic beliefs for making judgments regarding the law.

. . . the posts against national health care were deleted, with Virginia Thomas' blog staff claiming they were put up by staffers without her knowledge, review or permission.

Yeah, right.

At any rate, it seems like a serious enough of a question was raised (perhaps by Clarence to Virginia) about his ability to rule impartially in the future that the comments quickly were obliterated from her site.

Perception is reality.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 10:51PM by steve benson.

I don't see anyone in this thread making the case that a different standard should apply to anyone else, even Thomas. I do not see why you are being critical of us for something WE are not doing.

And your trying to hold US accountable for the actions of others, just the thing that virtually everyone in this thread is objecting to.

I have read my own thread and see NO reason why we should be criticized for a double standard, yes maybe others in the public should so be criticized, but not the people HERE in this discussion.

I'm saying that this very subject of whether the publicly-delivered, megaphoned views of a jurist's spouse could unduly influence that jurist's ability to render an impartial verdict on whatever subject has been roundly debated in wider society recently--and legitimately so.

You may argue that a spouse's publicly-aired personal opinions don't or shouldn't taint the capability of the judge to whom that partner is married to deliver fair verdicts (and I may or may not agree with you), but if you didn't want input from another perspective with which you disagree (in an open forum, no less, where all kinds of views are presented), then perhaps you should not have put up the thread in the first place.

You take it soooooooo personally, MJ. This is NOT about you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:07PM by steve benson.

Why would you feel the need to say "it cuts both ways" if you were not implying a double standard on our part? Indeed, I am fully aware that it "cuts both ways" and made no statement that it should NOT. Nobody HERE has said it does not cut both ways.

Seriously Benson, the only motive I can see for you to post that here is to try to make US accountable for something WE ARE NOT DOING. If we are not doing the behavior you are critical of, and you are being critical, then why bring it up HERE?

. . . or at least the perception of impartiality, or lack thereof.

These are legal concerns regarding judges recusing themselves from ruling on certain issues because of personal reasons--concerns that cut across the board, sideways, both ways and all ways.

Deal with it and quit reflexively sounding your "hurt alert."

Wow. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:16PM by steve benson.

You were trying to tell us it cuts both ways when NOBODY here was making an ideological statement.

The question is whether or not the ideas of a spouse--strongly- held and -voiced--can negatively affect the ability of the spouse's jurist partner to rule impartially on matters about which the spouse has uttered outspoken, in-the-arena views.

Read your own thread. Again and again, if necessary.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:27PM by steve benson.

And again, if you read the thread, FOR YOURSELF, nobody but you is making this about ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE INVOLVED in the prop 8 trial. And NOBODY HERE has made the claim that the same standard should not apply to Thomas, but you felt the need to lecture us on SOMETHING WE ARE NOT DOING.

"An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies."

You slay me, MJ, really, you do. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:35PM by steve benson.

My point was about the hypocrisy of holding one judge accountable for what his wife is a member of why ignoring the actually past an prescient membership of another judge. The fact that the ACLU and the Mormons were mentioned does NOT MEAN I AM ENGAGING IN A IDEOLOGICAL DEBATE ABOUT THOSE TWO ORGANIZATIONS. Yes, they have differing idiologies, but that was NOT the point.

The point was judging one person for what their spouse does while ignoring was another person is actually doing.

I made that specific point in my OP "Ok, I am trying to wrap my brain around this one. One judged is being asked to step down because of what someone other than the judged is associated with, while another judged that has clearly been associated with TSCC, which was highly active in passing prop 8, is not asked to step down?"

READ IT AND LEARN.

. . . well within topic since, after all, you brought up that very topic in your initial post headlining this very thread,

Go figure.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:52PM by steve benson.

There are ideologies involved in this case, yes, but my point was NOT ABOUT THE IDEOLOGIES.

My point was about holding one person responsible for what his wife does why not holding another person responsible for what that person actually does.

that has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY IDEOLOGY INVOLVED.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:54PM by MJ.

. . . the legal issues raised in a very similar circumstance of recent development.

But, then again, that's just my opinion. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:09AM by steve benson.

The obvious twisting of what I have said made it so I didn't even read the body of the post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:05AM by MJ.

OK, so I am not an idiot.

Thank you. :)

"My point was about holding one person responsible for what his wife does why not holding another person responsible for what that person actually does."

Hint: the word "why" seems out of place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:17AM by steve benson.

Of course you should have been able to figure that out IF you had actually been reading what I said in other posts.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:27AM by steve benson.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:35AM by steve benson.

Where they see a problem with the WIFE of a judge being associated with a group that has an interest in the case, while ignoring an actual judge's association with another group that has an interest in the case.

But that was not top point out any ideological differences, it was to point out a double standards of the people trying to get a particular judge to dismiss himself.

I introduced you to the Virginia Thomas matter that bears directly and relevantly on the subject at hand, in the larger legal sense.

Deal with it or not.

What's that sound, again?

HURT ALERT!

:)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:40PM by steve benson.

"These people that are fighting for prop 8 are NUTS. The idea that husband and wife can't have vastly different views on this subject is nuts, just nuts. It nuts to assume that Judge Reinhardt's and his wife share similar views on any particular subject."

You may step down.

It only talks about those bring the appeal of the prop 8 decision and why I think they are nuts. The reason I gave for saying they are nuts was NOT AUDIOLOGICAL it was about their being hypocritical by holding two different judges to two different standard.

Again, I said nothing about the ideology of Prop 8, I was clearly talking ONLY about the particular people that "are fighting for prop 8" Making a statement about the PEOPLE that "are fighting for prop 8" only talks about those PEOPLE and NOT the IDEOLOGY they are fighting over. In that quote you quoted I used "Prop 8" only as a discretion to identify the class of people I was talking about, they point I was making "The idea that husband and wife can't have vastly different views on this subject is nuts, just nuts. It nuts to assume that Judge Reinhardt's and his wife share similar views on any particular subject." Had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROP 8 Ideology.

Again, do try to read what I have written.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:07AM by MJ.

Maybe you shouldn't ask for such things. I deliver them to you.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:36AM by steve benson.

But NOTHING about me actually disagreeing with the IDEOLOGY they are supporting.

I can disagree with their hypocrisy on this issue and thing they are nuts for displaying such hypocrisy WITHOUT it being about ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT Hypocrisy.

Seriously Benson, are you even THINKING about what you are saying? Are you actually reading what I say before posting?

Again, because I disagree with them ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT says NOTHING about prop 8 ideology.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:51AM by steve benson.

Nor does my admission that I disagree with them on this particular NON IDEOLOGICAL POINT justify any discussions of ideology or the the treatment of Thomas.

Now, if you want, you can further address the existence of God question in this or any other thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:50AM by steve benson.

The ONLY person that made Clarance or the unfair application of the rules was YOU.

And seriously Benson where did you ever say "whether the publicly-delivered, megaphoned views of a jurist's spouse could unduly influence that jurist's ability to render an impartial verdict on whatever subject has been roundly debated in wider society recently--and legitimately so." or anything like it in your OP? The point of your post was NOT to say what I quoted above, you make it clear what the point of your OP was all about with your CONCLUDING STATEMENT "

NO PLACE. you are changing your story. "It cuts both ways, folks." You were clearly lecturing us about double standards, but now rather than just admit being wrong, you change your story.

If you don't want to deal with that fact, take it to a judge.

This is a topic of great interest in the larger world outside your box--and particularly in legal circles.

Learn from it--or don't. You could always sound your "hurt alert," instead.

Geezus.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:30PM by steve benson.

NO.

And holy ----. Now you are so arrogant as to say that I had something to LEARN form your post? What BS. As I already said, the same standard would apply to Thomas, I have NOTHING to learn from your inappropriate, unsolicited lecture.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:31PM by MJ.

Good question. Thanks for encouraging it to be raised at this juncture. :)

And am insulted that you would feel the need to lecture when NOBODY is doing the behavior you are lecturing on.,

It is not an insult that I said I learned nothing from you if you have stated only stuff that I already knew.

"And am INSULUTED that you would feel the need to lecture when NOBODY is doing the behavior you are lecturing on."

(emphasis added for your benefit)

OK, maybe just INSULT LEVEL ORANGE at this point but fast approaching INSULT LEVEL RED, eh?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:44AM by steve benson.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:55AM by steve benson.

. . . you know, judicial recusal, as examined within the context of the opinionated, openly-expressed views of the judge's spouse.

These are big legal issues of import and merit.

Listen and learn.

Nah.

HURT ALERT!

:)

I have learned nothing from what you have said, as I have said the "cuts both ways" statement is nonsense because I make NO claim that it should not be applied equally to all judges. To lecture me by saying "it cuts both ways" then say that I have something to learn from that is insulting because there is NO REASON to lecture me or others that are NOT MAKING DOUBLE STANDARD STATEMENTS that you are being critical of.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 11:43PM by steve benson.

You have NEVER address the actual point of this thread, that being

"Ok, I am trying to wrap my brain around this one. One judged is being asked to step down because of what someone other than the judged is associated with, while another judged that has clearly been associated with TSCC, which was highly active in passing prop 8, is not asked to step down?"

This is NOT about the two different idiolect, it is about ONE PARTICULAR GROUP having a specifiably listed double standard.

You wrote in your opening post:

"Judge Reinhardt is being asked to disqualify himself because his WIFE heads the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union."

This is the very issue pertaining to the case I mentioned involving Judge Thomas and his wife (who, by the way, is openly associated with groups that advocate on issues which could well come before Thomas and his fellow jurists).

See the connection in terms of the over-arching legal issue of recusal?

You still don't?

Well, I can't do much about that.

Carry on. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:08AM by steve benson.

I went on to CLARIFY that statement as to EXACTLY what I meant and you are now ignoring that clarification in order to try to address a point I was not actually making. Again my POINT was NOT about the actual organizations they were associated with.

The statement you quoted was, again, only a DESCRIPTION of the people involved, NOT the point I was making.

Taking things out of context, you should be ashamed of yourself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:12AM by MJ.

You need to read quotes from own posts. :)

Recusal is an important question.

I tried to apprise you of how it has potentially impacted the judicial world of potential rulings by an even higher judge (whose name you couldn't spell correctly).

Civic realities in the wider world can be brought to bear on the world of Mormonism. Actually, I recommend it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 12:33AM by steve benson.

Yes, I said that they were asking for one person to be excused, but that was NOT the reason they were nuts. When looked at IN CONTEXT, the point you are talking about was linked to another judge, the "NUTS" was in relationship the obvious hypocrisy in dealing with these TWO judges. To ignore my discussing BOTH judges taking what I have said out of context. the reason they were nuts is because thew were applying a different standard to another judge. To ignore that is pathetic, Steve, pathetic. I is again another example of you taking my points OUT OF CONTEXT.

Good night, and thanks for nothing.

If they overturn Walker's ruling it will probably go to the Supreme Court, and hopefully they'll make gay marriage legal throughout the US.

My TBM wife does not appreciate it when I remind her that she is to hearken to me as I hearken to God.

It turns out God really enjoys college football even if it interferes with Gen Conf.

;)

Do any of you folks against Prop 8 really feel any surprise that any church with Judeo-Christian teachings would be in support of Prop 8? Does that really shock anyone. Frankly I think both sides are insane ever letting this get to a federal court, most especially the US Supreme Court. Given the willingness of those folks to legislate from the bench, there's no telling what either side is going to end up with.

Personally I think both of these judges should have disqualified themselves, but ethics in California is just a word in the dictionary. The problem with both of these judges, is that they are supposed to be held to a higher standard of ethics. One where the "appearance of impropriety" is sufficient to show a conflict of interest. The fact that one's wife supports the ACLU, falls into the category of "appearance of impropriety." Do any of you really think the wife isn't whispering her opinion in the guys ear when he gets home at night.

Judges generally are informed people. As informed people they have opinions and associate with people who have opinions.

But I certainly would not.

And what is this about the ethics of California? This is the 9th circuit of the Federal appeals court, it represents way more than California (see link below for a map). This court also includes Idaho, where Judge Smith is from and lives. It seems to me that there is much more evidence that Smith has a conflict of interest, HIMSELF being so involved with one of the groups that campaigned to pass prop 8. So, trying to blame this on CA just shows your true ignorance of the process going on here.

BTW, I know of no rule that they are held to the standard that they must avoid the "appearance or impropriety". Indeed, the courts work hard to base cases, judgments and actions on FACT and NOT appearances.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000135



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 10:30PM by MJ.