Kangaroo Court—Now in Session!

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

and even the New York Times Opinion Editor Edwin Meese writes that the judge has stacked the deck against proposition 8 supporters.

“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.

–Beetle Blogger

Walker Reversed, Boies and Olson Legal Witch-hunt Stymied

Photo: Judge Walker’s Brand of Justice?

Good News!

The Prop 8 campaign is getting a break. Judge Vaughn Walker’s order that all private emails and campaign communications be turned over to the opposition for scrutiny by the tolerance police is being reversed.  Law.com is reporting that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed Judge Walker’s outrageous order saying that the campaign had made a “strong showing” that it would succeed on the merits of the discovery issue.

Ted Olson and David Boies, lawyers in the federal challenge to Proposition 8 , claim that Prop 8 violates the federal constitution, and want to find evidence that the Prop 8 backers were motivated by anti-gay animus.

They’ll of course find nothing, but that was never the point.  The point is: they shouldn’t even be allowed to look. It is none of their business!

The intent of the judge’s order was to intimidate and harass those who support the campaign today and in future campaigns who dare support the natural family.   That order was in direct conflict with the 8 Campaign’s First Amendment rights.

“Whether you like it or not” boys, that kind of roughshod intimidation doesn’t fly in a real court.

Judge Walker should be ashamed of himself for the petty nature of the order he put out in the first place.  It’s no surprise he’s being reversed, and by Clinton appointees no less!  Walker and his judicial activism had it coming.

No matter personal animus, Justice should always be blind.

—Beetle Blogger

Californians Will Have Their Say On Supreme Court Justices Who Constitutionally Stray

recall-the-judges

Automatic Recall of California Justices?

I learned an interesting thing this morning.  Judicial appointments in California are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.  Who is coming up for the end of their 12 year term this time around??

Three California Supreme Court justices will be up for reelection to 12-year terms on the November 2010 ballot:

1. Ron George – led court to invent homosexual “marriage” last year

2. Ming Chin — voted to uphold Prop. 22 last year

3. Carlos Moreno — voted to invent homosexual “marriages” last year

Carlos Moreno was the lone dissenting vote on upholding Proposition 8.  The amount of stretching and wheedling that had to be done in order to muscle his will into the state constitution automatically discredits him and disbars him in my mind.  There is no way he should ever sit as a judge over this state with that kind of willingness to overlook the basic rights of the people.

Ron George is hardly better.

There are some days when I am so glad to be a Californian.  When I look at these other states so helpless against their legislatures and judiciaries…It’s unfathomable the amount of work they have to put out to reorganize a corrupt system.  The California Constitution gives the people power.

That’s something to be grateful for.

—Beetle Blogger

Voice of the Nation: Open Discussion Night

voice_of_the_nation_blogheader1

Voice of the Nation

Family Values Blog Talk Radio

This Thursday Live at 9pm PST

On Thursday: Voice of the Nation hosts open discussion night!  Join Angela and Onlawn of Opine Editorials for an open discussion night tonight at 9pm PST.  All viewpoints welcome!

Call in or join the conversation by chat!  We’ll be covering the Alameda School District’s decision to force multisexual curriculum on elementary school students, the California Supreme Court’s decision on Proposition 8 and the 18,000 neutered marriages the court still insists on calling “marriages”.

We’ll also be continuing our discussion on surviving and winning online discussions with those who oppose marriage.  Can the vitriol be won? How to survive and win the internet flame wars with love!

TUNE IN HERE

Call in to VOICE OF THE NATION this Thursday at 9pm PST.  The call-in number is

347- 215-6801

California Supreme Court: Proposition 8 Upheld

Gay Marriage

In a huge victory for the supporters of marriage and the voters of California, Proposition 8 has been upheld by the California Supreme Court 6-1.

The people have spoken, and the courts affirm:  Marriage in California remains between a man and a woman.

—Beetle Blogger

Iowa Supreme Court Tears Down Marriage| Support HJR 6

iowa supreme court nueters marriageThe Judicial Arm at Work Again

The Iowa supreme court has inserted a sexual orientation requirement into marriage, where there wasn’t one before.

Of course, even though marriage is a social contract, no one wants to let the people vote to decide how their society is organized.

See this from Brian Brown at NOM:

“Injustice has been served today. The gay marriage movement today once again used the courts to push an untruth on unwilling Iowans: Same-sex unions are not marriages and Iowans should not be forced to treat them as such.”

“The majority of courts as well as the majority of Americans have rejected the arguments the Iowa judges imposed.” There is no more a constitutional right to gay marriage than there is a constitutional right to have your cat called a dog, because after all they are both small furry animals with four legs and a tail.”

Reading the decision is like watching another bit of the fabric of our civilization unravel:

Why do same-sex couples need marriage?  “The inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage.” Translation: “Iowans don’t think two guys pledging to a homosexual union are a marriage. So we, the guys with the fancy law school degrees and the black robes, the ones who know better than ignorant you, are going to give same-sex relationships the public affirmation the public hasn’t.”

The most heartbreaking sentence however is Footnote 26.

In Footnote 26 these justices conclude: “The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”

Justices? Injustices. I hate being right about something so sad: but gay marriage really is about rejecting the natural family, the importance of bringing together the two creators of the child, the mom and the dad, to raise their baby in love together. The Iowa court ruling once again makes that connection crystal clear.

Read it and weep.

Or if you are like me, read it and rise up to fight for the truth!  Fight for justice for our children, fight for love of the core values of our own (and any decent) civilization.

Rep. Steven King in Iowa has issued a stinging rebuke to this court and a stirring call to the Iowa Democratic leaders to permit the people of Iowa to decide the future of marriage. We’ll be partnering with him and other Iowans to urge the legislature to act now to reverse this injustice.

The battle ahead is immense. This is one of the legislatures “flipped” by gay billionaire Tim Gill–exactly in anticipation of this moment. If I have your support, I know the fight is worth it!

Can you help us at this critical time by giving $50, $500, or even, if God has given you the means, $5,000 to support marriage? Can you afford to pledge even $1 a month to support marriage?

“Unlike the people of California, the people of Iowa have no direct way to get this issue on the ballot so that they can take marriage back from the courts,” notes Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “Once again the most undemocratic branch of government is being used to advance an agenda the majority of Americans reject. Marriage means a husband and wife. That’s not discrimination, that’s common sense.”

“Even in states like Vermont where they are pushing this issue through legislatures, gay marriage advocates are totally unwilling to let the people decide these issues directly,” agreed Brown. “They’ve just about run out of courts willing to radically redefine marriage. The next step for gay marriage advocates will be to use these new laws to push Congress to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and then use the federal courts to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.” –Brian Brown, NOM

Articles to read:

UFI: Iowa Supreme Court: Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

Americans For Truth: Iowa Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Ruling an Assault on Midwestern Values, Says AFTAH’s LaBarbera

Kingfisher: Iowa Supreme Court

What you can do:

Support HJR 6: The Iowa Marriage Amendment

Go here

Email the link to your friends in Iowa.

<>Ruby

photo by nrbelex

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.