Vaughn Walker's Sexuality Irrelevant

[William769]

The motion to set aside Judge Vaughn Walker’s Prop. 8 decision because he is gay has no chance of success and is deeply offensive.

A judge’s race or gender or religion or sexual orientation never requires disqualification, though a judge might be personally affected by his or her rulings based on any of these factors. It would have been unthinkable to say that an African-American judge could not have heard challenges to laws requiring segregation.

Judges constantly decide cases that might affect them or their family members. A female judge of reproductive age is allowed to decide cases involving the availability of abortion, even though it might affect her in the future. Judges with minor-age daughters are allowed to hear challenges to laws requiring parental notice or consent for unmarried minors’ abortions. Catholic judges can hear challenges to abortion laws even if their church threatens to deny them communion if they rule in favor of abortion rights.

These examples are typical. For instance, judges can hear challenges to affirmative action programs even if they have children who might benefit or be hurt by whether race can be considered in college and professional school admissions. During the 1950s and 1960s, federal judges in the South ruled on challenges to segregation, even though their families would be affected by the rulings.

http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Vaughn_Walker_Commentary/

[elehhhhna]

1. by their logic, a straight person would also have to recuse himself

so I guess the judge must be asexual.

[jberryhill]

2. No, no, no, no.... Straight White Men are 'objective' - Everyone else is 'biased' /nt