Homophobic Republicans Demand Gay Illinois Judge To Recuse Herself From Marriage Equality Case PDF Print
Written by Instinct Staff | Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Tags: judge sophia hall, illinois, marriage equality, challenge, ban, same sex marriage, hearing, homophobes, recuse, herself, lesbian, peter labarbera, lindevaldsen, scott lively

sophiahall

With echoes of the failed witch hunt of Judge Vaughn Walker following California's Prop 8 trial, anti-gay Republicans in Illinois have gotten the ball rolling early and demanded that Judge Sophia Hall recuse herself from hearing the challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Details follow. 

A coalition of the Who's Who of Hate Groups, including Peter LaBarbera, Scott Lively and Rena Lindevaldsen, has formed to ask the openly gay Judge Hall to step down from the hearing. 

Two of the demands (according to ThinkProgress) include:

LINDEVALDSEN: If the tables were turned and she was a charter member of an organization that had as its mission to overturn Roe v. Wade and she was presiding over a case where the validity of Roe was in question, there would be incredible outcry to have her removed from the case. Given the significance of the case before her, Judge Hall should take steps to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest, and recuse herself.

LIVELY: Judicial recusal to prevent the appearance of bias is an essential component of our legal system. Its authority depends on public confidence in its impartiality. Can anyone reasonably expect an open lesbian and member of a “gay rights” advocacy group to be impartial on the issue of “gay marriage”? If this judge has any respect at all for our judicial system, she must recuse herself.

In June of 2011, a federal judge ruled against homophobes with torches in California who had attempted to have openly gay Judge Vaughn Walker's Prop 8 decision tossed out because of his sexuality. 

“The fact that a federal judge shares a fundamental characteristic with a litigant, or shares membership in a large association such as a religion, has been categorically rejected by federal courts as a sole basis for requiring a judge to recuse her or himself,” wrote Chief US District Judge James Ware. 

So, good luck with attempting to set dangerous legal precedent in Illinois, haters. 

Comments (5)Add Comment
0
...
written by Flex, July 24, 2012
Dear disgusting bigots, the gays shall win their equality under the law, and you can't do a god-damn thing about it. Big, bold middle finger to your entire pious flock. Your attitudes suck and your actions deserve extreme scrutiny. smilies/angry.gif
0
...
written by JR P, July 24, 2012
Are the straight judges recusing themselves if the case involves heterosexual rights or defendants? Absurd!
0
...
written by Steve234, July 24, 2012

Black judges are not required to recuse when a defendant or plaintiff is black, or when an issue of civil rights affecting all black people is in dispute.

In Perry v Schwarzenegger, the proponents files a motion to vacate on grounds that the gay judge should have recused. That motion was denied, and then appealed. The appeals court upheld the denial. The proponents appealed that, and the SC upheld the denial again.

Basically, a gay judge is NOT required to recuse from cases involving gay plaintiffs, gay defendants, or gay issues.

0
...
written by marcus816, July 24, 2012
Scott Lively Hate crime facilitator. Murder provocateur.
0
...
written by the kat, July 29, 2012
All the comments above premised on the notion that gay rights is a civil right. That has been decided yet. That has been the cornorstone of the gay rights movement. Not yet answered by the US Supt Ct. Yet the majority of US has.

Write comment

busy
 
 
 
© 2009 Instinct Magazine  |  All Rights Reserved  |  Web Site By Nathan Grimes Design