Kangaroo Court: Now in Session!
Judge Vaughn Walker is running the most poignant example in recent history of a kangaroo court as he puts the people of California on trial for daring to pass a constitutional amendment reaffirming the definition of marriage (proposition 8).
Steeped in all the authority California grants to an impartial judiciary, he has succeeded in turning judicial law on its head to favor his particular view. Kangaroo courts are sham legal proceedings set-up in order to give the impression of a fair legal process, but in fact, they offer no impartial justice because the verdict, invariably to the detriment of the accused, is decided in advance.
In judging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the question is whether limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is constitutional, or it isn’t. That’s a simple question of law. It has nothing to do with opinions, views, emails or other first amendment protected private communications of those who support and promote marriage between a man and a woman. Judge Walker believes they are essential. Why? and who stands to gain from the position he has taken?
As Maggie Gallagher noted, no one promoted proposition 8 as a tool of hatred as gay advocate lawyers Olsen and Boies claim, and the evidence is ample to see, yet Judge Walker continues to open the candy store to the opposition’s lawyers:
“After Prop. 8, gay couples continue to enjoy unmolested all the legal civil rights of marriage under California law through civil unions. Who will stand up for the core civil rights of the people of California and the rest of the USA to participate in democracy without fear? Certainly not Judge Vaughn Walker. ” —Maggie Gallagher
So what is at the heart of this effort? Jennifer Roback Morse has commented extensively on the dangers this use of California’s court system will have on the rights of the public:
“California’s high-profile federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, …appears to be about creating a federal case for same sex marriage. But in fact, much more is at stake. Lurking in the shadows of this case is a breathtaking expansion of judicial interference with perfectly valid elections. Whatever your views about Proposition 8, we surely should be able to agree that special interest groups can’t go into court to overturn elections they don’t like.”
“Political professionals of all parties and persuasions should be completely outraged by this judicial foray into mind-reading. The rules you create against your opponent today can be used against you tomorrow. Everyone involved in politics, as a professional, spectator, or voter, has a stake in the outcome of this foray into legally sanctioned harassment. “ —Jennifer Roback Morse
“Judge Walker’s decisions have been surprising because they differ from those of other judges who have previously scrutinized marriage laws — in Iowa, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and elsewhere in California, for example. In those instances, the courts have decided legal challenges to state marriage laws based on legislative history, scholarly articles and testimony by social scientists and other experts. They have, in some cases, looked for evidence of legislative intent in the statements published in official voter information pamphlets.
…Judge Walker has ruled that things like TV advertisements, press releases and campaign workers’ statements are also relevant evidence of what the voters intended. The judge went so far as to order the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He has even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.
Most troubling, Judge Walker has also ruled that the trial will investigate the Proposition 8 sponsors’ personal beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality…
To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube. This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.”
If the case has already been decided in the mind of Judge Walker, what more is there to see? Do advocates of same-sex marriage actually think this is the way to persuade people that gay marriage is good and right and wouldn’t trample the rights and beliefs of others?
The proof is in the pudding, and it’s rank.